User talk:DLJessup

This user may have left Wikipedia. DLJessup has not edited Wikipedia since 5 June 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to my talk page.

• I am no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia, having shut down operations on November 12, 2006.
  • On June 30, 2008, I came back to Wikipedia to make a single edit to the Mary Katharine Ham page and note my status as a non-contributor on this discussion page and my main user page. I do not intend to resume active contributions.
  • On June 6, 2009, I came back to update the quantile article, which seemed to have an error.

---

Archived discussions

• /Archive 00
• /Archive 01
• /Archive 02

A year or so ago, you made archives of whatever Talk:United States Electoral College was then called. The page has since been moved, but the links to the archives weren't updated. I tried to find them but couldn't. Do you remember where you put them? If so, maybe you could fix the links. —wwoods 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLJ, I notice that you have amended the final day of the term of office of a number of U.S. Presidents and added the note:

<-- Prior to the passage of the 20th Amendment, presidential terms ended at 11:59:59 on March 3. --

I question the veracity of this assertion. The period of office of any one President ends at the moment that his successor takes the Oath of Office, an event which even before the hour was fixed by the 20th Amendment has always taken place in the middle of the day rather than on the stroke of midnight. (Or are you perhaps saying that someone other than the outgoing office holder is President between midnight and noon?)

Taken from The U.S. Constitution Online, which includes further discussion regarding the timing of the changeover:

Presidential Terms

The Constitution [Article II, Section 1] is clear enough on this one point: the President was not able to perform his duties until the Oath of Office was administered. Should there ever be a question, the exact time of the term's beginning would have to be the time the oath was given, at least until there was a law stating something different.

And, given that the practice, even before the 20th Amendment, was to administer the Oath at or around noon (certainly, always well after midnight), the exact time of a term's ending would have to be on the same day as the oath-taking which inaugurated the next. -- Picapica 11:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

————

Wow, that's just … wrong. All that the Constitution says is that (a) the President's term is four years and (b) that the President can't exercise his authority until he takes the oath. If the time of oathtaking was controlling, does that mean that Zachary Taylor's term ended on March 5? (Contrariwise, did Taylor somehow extend Polk's term to four years and one day by delaying his oath of office?) Why did Washington's take his second oath on March 4, when he took his first oath on April 30? The presidential term starts prior to the oathtaking, but that's all that the oathtaking tells us.

(As an aside, your source states, “[The President's term] is set to four years and has never changed.” This is actually false. President Roosevelt's first term was somewhat less than four years, thanks to the 20th Amendment. The reason why an amendment was required to change the start of the President's term was because such a change violated the constitutional stricture that terms be four years and only an amendment could, even temporarily, have changed that condition.)

I'll point you to Talk:Grover Cleveland#Presidential term for a previous post I made on this topic (although I didn't see the response until just now; I've never had Cleveland watchlisted).

— DLJessup (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

————

OK, if I concede that it is not, legally, the act of oath-taking that marks the end of a predecessor's incumbency (and there are sources which agree with you on this: for exmple this one on the Taylor / Polk changeover that you mention above), that does not settle the question of whether or not the moment of transfer of power should be regarded as noon on the first day of a presidential term. If, as you maintain, a President's term of office expired prior to the enactment of the 20th Amendment at "11:59:59" [I take it that by this you mean 23:59:59, and not one second before noon] on March 3, then the question remains: who exercised the presidential powers between 0:00 and 12:00 on March 4? The outgoing President could not, if his term had expired, and the incoming President could not, if he had not yet taken the Oath. That a person should be President from noon on March 4 until noon on March 4 four years later does not infringe the consttutional stipulation of a four-year term. i would suggest that the 20th Amendment mentioned noon only as a legal tidying up of what had become long established by custom and practice: that presidential terms expired at noon. -- Picapica 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

————

“Who exercised the presidential powers between 0:00 and 12:00 on March 4?” Nobody. The President-elect became President at 00:00, but could not exercise his powers until he took the oath of office, which happened to be at 12:00. In theory he could have taken the oath of office at any point after midnight. (In fact, he could have taken the oath of office prior to midnight: President Rutherford Hayes took the oath of office privately on March 3, 1877 because March 4 was a Sunday, before retaking the oath publicly on March 5.)

One of the reasons that the framers of the 20th Amendment were careful to give the time of day of the start of presidential and congressional terms was precisely because they realized that, in the absence of any definition of time of day by the framers, the legal default for the switchover was midnight, just as, if your lease expires on March 4, in the absence of language to the contrary, you retain possession of the apartment until 23:59:59.999… on March 3.

Look, there's a reason the Midnight Judges weren't called the “Noon Judges”; the rumor was that Adams was signing judicial commissions until midnight, when his term expired.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I was fixing up disambig pages when I saw one or two that had hndis templates with Name=Foomacher, Dave and so I "fixed" them, since 99.9% were sorted by article name (first name first). Then I saw you had done a lot more, so I stopped fixing them. Are you going change them all to sort by surname? There has been a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Cleanup existing lists that makes it look like hndis will be going away, and you should be aware of that before spending a lot of time on the sort. If there is something I should do to help, let me know. Chris the speller 01:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I will postpone acting on further sorting until that issue is resolved.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at George Brown, in particular the template and category at the bottom. This is what has been proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Changing disambig tag, and you might want to raise any concerns there. They don't want any templates but disambig on dab pages. Thanks for being patient. Chris the speller 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats on your improvement to hndis: hope it's OK piling in on this old thread, but I just wanted to thank you for modifying the {{hndis}} template to accept positional parameters. When I started using that template a few months back, I added it to a lot of pages without checking whether it required named parametrrs, and I'm afraid that I didn't get to correct all of them. I'm sure I am not the only editor to have made this mistake, so it's great to know that there is no need to haul out AWB to hunt for them! --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. — DLJessup (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd posted this on the Faithless electors talk page, but in case you didn't see it: I came across a claim that Belva Ann Lockwood "petitioned Congress to count the vote of Indiana for Belva Lockwood on the grounds that the electoral college of that state had switched its vote from Cleveland to her, 'as it had an undisputed legal right to do.'" http://www.stanford.edu/group/WLHP/papers/lockwood.htm I don't know how much credibility the claim has. Schizombie 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on Talk:Faithless elector, I'm loath to make any changes based on this reference alone. There's not enough context so that we can write about what happened, even if the claim is true—all we know is that Lockwood disputed the electoral vote in Indiana, but we don't know what the facts were.

— DLJessup (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a BAL Collection near me which I can look into, although I don't know if it might contain information beyond her claim - like what those electors did, or what congress did with her petition if she really made one. An anonymous user added the claim to Lockwood's page - I added a "citation needed" and posted on the IP's talk page. The Oxford Companion to American Law by James W. Ely cites Babcock (author of the article at the link above) in their entry on Lockwood, but doesn't mention the electoral college. The claim of her winning those electoral votes also is printed in A Place at the Table: Struggles for Equality in America (2002) on page 77, which I found from an Amazon Search Inside This Book search. No citation provided on that page for the info. Schizombie 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to get to the library yet, although the anonymous user I mentioned above added the source - one of Uncle John's Bathroom Readers! I posted again on the talk page to see what source the BR was citing, if any. I cleaned up the citation the editor added, but I wonder if I shouldn't sub it out for or add one of the ones I found above? Also, is it rare for a candidate who received no electoral votes to dispute their own count? Schizombie 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found out some more about this, but there's still more to do. Шизомби 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DLJ - This will probably be a dumb question. Has Wikipedia thought of only allowing registered users to edit articles? That would make it easier to control vandalism. Just wondering.

I believe that the question has been raised (and shot down) multiple times. For example, see Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Okay, thank you. Chronicler3 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show What's really motivating the AfD? patsw 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to do a mind meld on Arundhati bakshi to get an answer to that question. In all honesty, the article is borderline according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this is why I am listed as “Abstain” instead of “Keep”.

— DLJessup (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have moved a couple of names i.e. (moved John Dickinson (1732-1808) to John Dickinson (1732–1808): en-dash). Without suggesting any objection, I am curious why this is needed, and exactly how the names now read. There seem to be a number of redirects (maybe some double redirects), which I am happy to clean up if needed, and if I understand what the target really is. Thanks. stilltim 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the example you have given, I moved “John Dickinson (1732<hyphen>1808)” to “John Dickinson (1732<en-dash>1808)”. Ranges are supposed to be given by en-dashes, not hyphens; however, until recently, the underlying MediaWiki software couldn't handle non-ASCII characters like en-dashes in article titles, so hyphens were used as a substitute. Now that MediaWiki can handle full Unicode characters such as the en-dash, there's no reason not to use the proper punctuation.

I believe that I cleaned up all of the double redirects in the main article for any articles which I have so moved; however, it has since come to my attention that there may be double redirects to the talk page for such an article.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The en-dash is available on the edit page in the “Insert” box immediately below the “Save page”, “Show preview”, and “Show changes” buttons. It is between the schwa (ə) and the em-dash (—).

— DLJessup (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just keep learning this stuff. stilltim 19:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Rather than start a new section, I thought I'd just pile on!

I stumbled across your decision to convert long form "–" n-dashes in 1632 series, Here, so was wondering why? I gather that answer is some of the archania in the WP:MOS, which having never heard of 'm or n' dashes B4 Wiki, I guess I didn't absorb. On my browser, they look much the same (IE6); I'm getting ready to switch over to Firefox, which I believe I saw above (sect. edit) is yours. But the real issue at hand is the effort to make the switch. Was that just because you were working that article otherwise, or is this a systematic effort that I would have thought someone would create a 'bot' to perform. (I'm also impressed and somewhat relieved that someone knows what some of those funny fonty-things (technical term, my own! <G>) below are actually called! I've used them where necessary (China articles), but taking my hands off the keyboard to grab a mouse, etc. seems a bit slowing. And I'm not what I'd call a fast typist!

Thanks FrankB 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be honored to nominate you for admin at any time, it is clearly overdue IMO. Just say the word :-). NoSeptember ^talk 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you. You completely floored me.

I may take you up on your offer, but I'll need to think about it.

Once again, thank you.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are still thinking :). While many are anxious to join the admin ranks, you have always struck me as focused on the encyclopedic content side here, not overly concerned about adminship. Yet that is just what we need that in our admins, the good planners and those with a content focus. We already have so many of the gung-ho vandal fighters, not that we don't also need those. This is first and foremost about improving Wikipedia. In addition to me nominating you, you can ask someone else or do a self-nom, whatever you think is best. Don't be reluctant to ask someone. Consider looking into the RfA process and adminship at your leisure, I have put together a list of user subpages users have written on the topic that may be of interest to you (here). Becoming an admin does not mean you have to abandon your current areas of focus in the project. It can be very useful to be able to view deleted content, and do the deletions and protections yourself. It is not just about vandal fighting - I actually do very little of that since there are others who clearly have more interest in doing it. There aren't many users with more accumulated work than you who are not admins already (and those who do tend to be the ones who get involved in major disputes frequently), you are clearly well deserving of it. Well, I just wanted to keep you on the track of thinking about it. The timing is all up to you. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 14:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoSeptember:

This'll be my third attempt at a reply to your post. I started replies twice yesterday, and each time was pulled away from my computer by Real Life^TM events. (Each time, when I came back, I found it easier to start fresh than to use my saved draft.)

When you made the offer back in March, I was a little hesitant. Partially this was because I was worried about my Real Life^TM/Wikipedia balance, and I was trying to cut back, not add more responsibility. Moreover, when I looked at some of the RfA nominations and asked myself how I would answer some of the questions that were posed to other candidates, I didn't have good answers to some of the questions posed. Nonetheless, I didn't want to close the door my giving an unequivocal “No”. And I'm glad I didn't.

When I reviewed some RfA nominations yesterday, I found that many of the questions that were causing me problems earlier I now have answers for. And I think I've got a better handle on keeping myself balanced. So I'd like to go for an adminship. If you're still willing to sponsor me, I'd appreciate it.

The question now is timing. Right now there's a lot going on in my personal life (moving, major project at work, etc.), and I don't have a lot of energy for substantive Wikipedia work. (You'll note that a lot of my recent changes are trivial sorting of a disambiguation category.) I think that all this will blow over by mid-May, say, May 15. If you are willing, I'd like to have my name put in for adminship then.

Thank you very much, DLJessup (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan sounds good. I don't regard that date as set in stone though, things could change. I asked for a month's delay at first too, but then was ready to start just 11 days later. Being up for adminship is not that much work, you just have to be around to answer the few additional questions you will get, otherwise it's mostly just waiting for the week to end. Feel free to work on the standard RfA questions ahead of time (and the common add-on questions, which can be found in some of the current RfAs), it can leave a good first impression to have solid answers (I worked on mine for several days ahead of time and got a lot of positive feedback on them, and more importantly disuaded any potential opposition ;-) ). So, whenever you are ready let me know, I'll create this page and add my nomination statement and then you will add the rest. NoSeptember ^talk 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that May turned into June ;-)... see my talk page. NoSeptember 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The vote totals on these two sites are different, close—but still different. E.g. Nader's votes are higher on the FEC site, Clinton's and Dole's are higher on the House site. Why would this be, and what then is the most authoritative source?

FEC

Clinton: 47,401,185

Dole: 39,197,469

Nader: 684,871

House of Representatives

Clinton: 47,401,898

Dole: 39,198,482

Nader: 526,794

Also, the House totals for Reagan, Mondale, and Berglund for 1984 are all lower than Leip's. Thanks, Schizombie 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (and I have nothing to back this up at the moment, so take it with a grain of salt) that the House Clerk's figures are simply a recapitulation of the results returned by the state Secretaries of State at the mid-December due date, while the FEC's figures are more recent, taking into account fixes that were made after the due date for vote certification. (The FEC page you linked to gives the date of its figures as January 16, 1997.) Leip's Atlas is similarly able to take advantage of late error catches.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just double-checked myself and lo and behold, the Clerk of the House has this note on the title:

(Corrected to July 23, 1997)

So I'm going to have to reverse my position and state that, as the House Clerk figures are more recent, they should control. My other comment, that Leip was able to take advantage of late error catches for the 1984 election, still holds, because he did his work in the mid-1990s while the House Clerk's figures are dated at May 1985.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uff, what a mess. Why do you suppose Nader's totals are so much lower according to the House? Do you think maybe votes he got on other lines than Green wound up in a different column? It's weird how they don't have the candidates' names in those docs. Schizombie 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of candidate names is because voters are voting for the party's slate of electors, not for the actual candidate. This can be a good thing. For example, in 1912, the Republican vice presidential candidate died a week before the election; the party apparatus was able to smoothly substitute a replacement.

As for why Nader's totals are so much lower: I don't know. However, if you consider the Volusia error in 2000 or the Lowndes County error in 2004, it could easily be an error in copying or in addition during the tabulation; it seems that such glitches are not uncommon.

— DLJessup (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it makes it difficult to be encyclopedic. One can put certain vote counts on pages, and cite them truthfully, but they're not the whole truth. I feel like the discrepancies should be noted in some way, if only in a footnote...? Even though I already had very little confidence in US elections, I still find it dismaying to learn of things like this. And yet I continue to vote anyway. Schizombie 18:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be speedy deleted, but it does no harm being in AfD either, and since another editor there has opposed speedying, I'll leave it. A few more speedy votes and it may end up deleted soon anyway. In any case, it's not a big deal whether its deletion gets slowed down a bit. NoSeptember ^talk 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, it seems this should be an AfD since being a host on a nationally syndicated show could be notable. Which means you made a good catch :-). NoSeptember ^talk 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. I apologize for the error. My computer is public and it looks as if it was posted by mistake.

Hi again. I see you should probably take a look into my mutating mutation of 1632 (novel) and Talk. Esp. the latter, as things will be exported, folded spindled and mutilated. Most of the material is what I call a first draft. I'll be looking forward to your input! FrankB 07:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLJessup – I have created a new WikiProject for succession boxes located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Now we can discuss what needs to be fixed in a forum and make it into a larger project among Wikipedians. Not that I want too much infighting, but we all have had some disagreements and never know where to discuss them, so now we have a place. Come and join. Don't forget to sign the participant list if you want in.
–Whaleyland 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently replaced all my beautiful high-resolution png US historical flags with wrong, ugly svg versions. See this post of mine at the talk page. I won't revert your numerous recent edits, as there are probably valid changes there, and I don't have the time to sort out exactly what would need reverting.

Anyway, I made a nice layered svg file with all the historical flags: Image:US Flag All Historical.svg, but I don't have time to export the image several times with different layers showing, upload all the images to commons, and then systematically replace all the uses of these flags throughout wikipedia. If you like though, that would be good, as the current svg flags are really quite crappy. I'd be sad if they continued to mar the once-beautiful flag page into perpetuity. ;)

Also, in the future, if you're going to make big changes like this, users who created the original content would likely appreciate a heads up. Thanks!

--jacobolus (t) 09:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repost this on your talk page momentarily, to make sure that you see it. First, a diff of the flag page history. Note that many PNGs are being changed to SVGs. Note that the person responsible for this change is MiLo28. Please be so kind as to direct your ire toward somebody who actually did what you accused them of doing. Thank you.

— DLJessup (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! Terribly sorry! I had apparently been looking at the 51st-100th edits, the first many of which were yours, and clicked the "diff with curr" button, and saw that the change had been made since then. Please accept my apologies. Nasty mixup. --jacobolus (t) 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted.

— DLJessup (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the copy & paste move of Alexander Ramsay to attention at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I have now sorted it out! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it. — DLJessup (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikified this and added some categories. Any idea of his dates, and is he still alive? Runcorn 12:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of research, and I found his date of birth, as well as the dates of his career in professional football. I have no idea whether he is still alive: as far as I can tell, he played his last professional game in 2002, although it seems likely that he simply retired.

— DLJessup (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed in the Discussion Page at United States presidential election, 1812, you wrote, "My gut feel is that “Republican” is a better term than “Democratic Republican” (and either is better than “Democratic-Republican”)."

As one who occasionally edits history textbooks, I'm surprised by the use of "Republican Party" to describe Jefferson's party, as the vast majority of textbooks use "Democratic-Republican Party." I did a study of 25 American history books to see which term is used most often. You can find the results of my study at the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) Talk page. I hope you will have a look at this. My study confirmed what I thought -- that the vast majority of historians use "Democratic-Republican Party." I think we should stick to this term in the Wikipedia. Griot 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Party.27s_name_as_it_is_used_in_American_history_books[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States)#Party's name as it is used in American history books.

— DLJessup (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you are ready, just add your acceptance sentence/signature to the subpage, correct the time on the Discuss here line to the timestamp you will add it to WP:RFA and then add it to the top of the list of nominations. Oh, you should enable your email (you can create a free Yahoo acct. if you need to), some insist on admin accessibility by email. Good luck. NoSeptember 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The next step, that only you can do, is to accept the nomination (sign right above where it says Support). I can do the rest if you'd like me to. NoSeptember 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I sent you a telepathic message that I was planning to get the clock rolling late in the day when I was more free to respond to the initial questions, but clearly you didn't receive it.  :-P I've accepted and posted the RfA. Thank you for all of your help so far. — DLJessup (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for being impatient ;-). Yes you will get a lot of attention in the first few hours, especially since this will be prime time in much of the English speaking world. I'll wait a bit to give others a chance to "beat the nominator" in support. NoSeptember 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've gone ahead and archived the beginning of this talk page as three separate pages, each under 32KB. (I use 32KB as a convenient rule of thumb, even though the technical limitations that were originally behind that number have disappeared.) Good? — DLJessup (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get your name from the book It Can't Happen Here? SushiGeek 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I got my name from my parents. (Yes, I was so gauche as to use my real name. :-) ) — DLJessup (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. :P SushiGeek 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was most dissapointed to have to not promote your nomination. Good news was no one brought up any points to show you were anything less than a great contributor, so keep that up. Bad news was people opposed without any evidence you would abuse the admin tools, which I feel is the most important criteria. But I've been entrusted with determining consensus, not the power to disregard people's positions I disagree with, so I could not promote. Looks like you'd be a shoe in with more participation in admin related areas if you'd like to try in the future. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Taxman ^Talk 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a shoe-in in the future! I'd like to nominate or co-nominate you in a few months; let me know if that sounds good. Although I do think you would "learn on the job", it would probably be a good idea to participate some more in XfDs and/or a project, just to show that you know what you're doing. Best of luck, Λυδαcιτγ 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much work as it seems - I was looking through your Wikipedia-space edits, since the small number thereof was a concern for some people, and the Village Pump comments were some of your most recent edits in this space (not including your RfA). After reading through the comments I was satisfied that you would make a good admin.

Anyway, you're very welcome. As I said, I'd love to renominate you; just send me a note. Λυδαcιτγ 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know I'm disappointed, but you handled yourself well and have undoubtedly picked up quite a few admirers of your talents. I certainly hope you don't regret the attempt, so many solid users easily perceived what a value you are to the project and that is always nice to know. Keep up the good work, I wish I had your work habits. (helpful link ;) NoSeptember 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, all three of you. I will be replying to each of you individually shortly. — DLJessup (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like criticisms are easy to fix. Stephen B Streater 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope so. (And, per your edit summary, I hope you can be involved in any future RfA I might have as well.)

Rather ironic that I should take an exorbitant period to respond to your message thanking me for the celerity with which I posted my vote to your RfA.  :) In any event, I certainly echo the comments of most above, believing there to be no reason to think that you'd (a) willfully misuse the admin tools, to the detriment of the project, or (b) avolitionally or ignorantly misuse the admin tools, either because you were insufficiently familiar with a given area in which you acted or because you acted on cursorily-made conclusions, and thus that, irrespective of all the good you'd surely do as an admin, you should be supported. I'm altogether sorry that things turned out as they did, but surely they will go better in the future. My apologies, once more, for having failed to reply sooner. Joe 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I am the last person who can complain about slow responses: I've still got a number of thank you notes to write, and it took me three days to respond to Mr. Streater (due mostly to another involuntary wikibreak—isn't summer supposed to be a period of more spare time, not less?)

Anyway, thanks for your note, and, once again, no apology necessary. — DLJessup (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DL: I came across your work on List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and came here to thank you for having anticipated a year ago some work that otherwise I would be doing myself. Right now I'm in the process of creating articles for various former federal judges and congressmen who have been involved in some issues I'm working on. You and I have some overlapping interests in congressional history and procedure as well, and I am in the process of getting more wiki-involved, so I suspect we will run across each other again from time to time. I'm sorry, though, that I became active about a month after your RfA. Please let me know if and when you are thinking of trying again. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes, DL. I apologise for the error; people using AWB won't see edit summaries. I think this tagging solution works well, and have used it before. Thanks for letting me know of the mistake; I try to be careful, but these tags make it really obvious. Let me know if this ever happens again... it shouldn't. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some additional information on the March 3rd vs. March 4th discussion above, but hesitate to wade in belatedly if the issue has been resolved. If further evidence that the President and Congress remained in office through noon on March 4 would be helpful, let me know and I can supply some. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it had been resolved in favor of the President and Congress remaining in office until midnight between March 3 and March 4. If you have evidence that contradicts this, I would be most interested in seeing it.

— DLJessup (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disagree with you on this issue, but the evidence is pretty clear that until the Twentieth Amendment was passed, presidential and congressional terms expired at noon on March 4th. Nor was this just a theoretical issue; the outgoing Congress and President routinely exercised their powers on the morning of March 4th in odd-numbered years.

The lame-duck congressional session that began in December of each even-numbered year frequently went down to the wire and saw Congress meeting on the morning of March 4. I have before me the Congressional Record that includes March 4, 1917 (I am doing an article on some legislation that passed in the 64th Congress, 2d session and found an ex-library set of the Record for that session cheap on Amazon). The Senate was in session on the morning of March 4, 1917 -- even though it was a Sunday -- continuing in session from the previous day (there was a filibuster in progress concerning arming of U.S. merchant ships traveling to Europe). The Senate continued in session right until 12:00 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. The hour of 12 o'clock noon having arrived, under the Constitution of the United States I now declare the Senate of the United States adjourned sine die." (54 Cong. Rec. 5020)

The House was also in session on March 4, 1917, until 12 noon, when the proceedings read:

"The SPEAKER. The hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, under the Constitution I declare the House in the Sixty-fourth Congress adjourned sine die. God bless you all. [Applause.]" (54 Cong. Rec. 5033)

Meanwhile, the President was signing bills into law, also on the morning of March 4 (see 54 Cong. Rec. 5032). This is not unique to 1917; a Google search for "Act of March 4" (use the quotes) will turn up numerous statutes that became law on March 4 of a given odd-numbered year (e.g., Act of March 4, 1923), and certainly were signed on the last day of the outgoing congress rather than the first day of the incoming one.

In fact, there is a room in the Capitol building off the Senate chamber called the President's Room, which was formerly used for presidential bill signings, particularly in the last days of the session through the morning of March 4. See for example here. This custom continued right through the 1930's as is reflected in this interesting article from Time from 1933.

I hope this is of interest. If more information is required I will take a look the next time I'm in a major library. I haven't thought through yet at whether any of this has any impact on article content. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 23:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you. I'm not happy to be proven wrong on this issue, but I'm glad to have such a definitive answer to the question.

I just did a quick survey of the Library of Congress' online version of the Senate Journal. As best I can determine, the first time that the Senate met on the morning of March 4 (of an odd-numbered year) is in 1851. On that occasion, one of the Senators raised the question of whether he could take the oath of office at 1 a.m. on March 4, and the Senate voted that the term did not end until noon on March 4.[1]

I'll take a gander and see if there's anything that needs fixing based on this revelation.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify one statement in my previous posting. Its possible that the Senate had a session that extended past midnight in a previous Congress, but 1851 was the first case that I could find in which the Senate recessed and then came back on the morning of March 4.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It would be interesting to see the Congressional Globe debate corresponding to the Journal entry your eagle eye found. I'd be glad to collaborate with you (and with any prior users who might be interested in the additional info we've both come up with) on any article touching up that might be required -- just let me know. Now if only I could figure out a way to use this obscure type of knowledge in my day job. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article on a whim, but it seems to be missing something. I invite any suggestions you may have. NoSeptember 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it, and I don't have any suggestions yet. Remind me about this in a couple of days; maybe something will have floated to the front of my brain by that point.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's a thought: for election pairs in which apportionment changes, you could display “Results of earlier_election under later_election apportionment” and vice versa. That could be a separate section. Let me know if that seems lame.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, and it also seemed to suggest that the older election should be on the left to show the progression in a more understandable way. I changed 2004 to reflect this. NoSeptember 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't what I meant, but your idea was better than what I meant, so I'm happy. Here's a question, though: when you work this back to the transition from 1960 to 1964, how are you going to handle the addition of the District of Columbia? It's a little like reapportionment, except that there's no “before” picture for you to project what its result would be. Also, your table treats states as unified entities: how are you going to handle faithless electors and split states?

— DLJessup (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a numbers standpoint, if the winning party picked it up, it would be a gain (as in 1964). Should we add a new column for Gains from newly created states? Or we should footnote it? (there will be a lot of new states in the 19th century, not all of them won by the winning party). I suppose we also need to add the EV grand total (because it changes so often in the 19th century) and the loser's total as well, if there is a good way to do that without complicating it too much. NoSeptember 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you there, since you're most recently active there and did a substantial rewrite of the informal explanation. I was going to ask you on your talk page, but figured this would fall under "the relevant article talk page, so that everyone can share in the discussion", if anyone else is looking now or in the future. TransUtopian 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of proper (specific) persons, places or things get capitalized. Long-time English rule. These articles and categories are not not about 'courts of appeals' in general (not specific) which would be lowercase, but about the United States Courts of Appeals (specific/proper name). Therefore, they should all be capitalized, notwithstanding your recent and incorrect changes to various articles involved and your attempt to change these category names. Thanks Hmains 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to this at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13, but there are at least two misconceptions here, so I need to rebut them here as well. First, I understand the long-time English rule; however, I can refer to a United States court of appeals, so United States court of appeals is not specific and hence a common noun. However, there is only one United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; thus, it is a proper noun and is therefore capitalized. Second, this is not a new change. The name of the article United States court of appeals was set over a year ago. That the category was miscapitalized is simple oversight which I am now trying to correct. — DLJessup (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong view on the rename, although I will comment soon on the proposal, but please let me know when the debate is resolved. I have finished creating an article or at least a stub for each judge of the First Circuit and within the week hope to have done so for the Second Circuit as well, and was then going to make sure all the articles were properly tagged, but I will wait to do so until it's clear what to tag them with. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger wilco. — DLJessup (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome your thoughts on my comment at the category rename discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I messed that up with the templates at Category talk:United States Courts of Appeals judges, when I got to the category page I forgot it had been listed once already, my bad. Steve block Talk 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insights on the matter of the naming of the Democratic-Republican Party would be helpful now, as the denial of an early Jeffersonian Republican party is spreading to Madison's article and others. Skyemoor 12:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment, please take a look at here and let me know what you think. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a user who has been identifying errors on the presidential election maps. Comments here, here and here. There may be other errors or comments I missed. Unfortunately the user's IP address changes every day, so it is hard to keep up with him. I imagine that you know who can best do the appropriate modifications of these images. Cheers, NoSeptember 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3 weeks without DLJessup! I hope you are only on a long wikibreak. After two years of solid editing, you are certainly entitled to a vacation. NoSeptember 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:S-ptd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Waltham, The Duke of 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see more about this here. The vote is not expected to be a thriller or anything; the Project only wishes to get rid of a redundant template.

Basically, I am afraid you should visit the Project's talk page more often; there are several issues that need to be dealt with. Right now it seems to be forgotten by almost all members of the Project.

Also, there is a working version of the /Guidelines subpage at User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and any input, either a good idea or a simple comment, would be greatly appreciated.

Have a nice day.

Waltham, The Duke of

The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.

A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.

And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.

Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.

SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.

Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Maria Angelova (singer), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Maria Angelova (singer) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Maria Angelova (singer), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Leip footnote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Leip footnote 2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:U.S. popular vote missing disclaimer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maria Angelova (singer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kleinzach 02:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Maria Angelova (singer), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Angelova (singer). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kleinzach 02:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ironholds has nominated List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ælfric of Hampshire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ælfric of Hampshire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. §hawnpoo 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DLJessup! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 75 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. David Allen Brooks - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pro-Administration Party (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:V - no coverage in sources which verifies its contents. I can't find any use of the term through Google books/scholar : [2]

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Claritas (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tony Lee (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements - a few bits only for this actor

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start U.S. Senator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pro-Administration Party (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references have been included for over five years. The references mentioned on the talk page do not refer much to a "Pro-Administration Party" per se, but rather Alexander Hamilton and those who supported him and who later formed the Federalist Party after the Washington Administration.

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. Holdek (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pro-Administration Party (United States) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Administration Party (United States) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holdek (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-Administration Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Administration Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Holdek (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Duffy (psychiatrist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Duffy (psychiatrist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Delta13C (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. presidential ticket list row no vp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yyyy U.S. presidential election project page link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1789–1792 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1812–1823 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1823–1826 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1836–1837 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1837–1838 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1842–1843 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1843–1844 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1845–1846 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1846–1851 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1851–1852 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1853–1857 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1858–1860 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994–2005 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition CJ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start U.S. Supreme Court composition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition court lifespan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition row has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:End U.S. Supreme Court composition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USFedCircuitComposition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:End U.S. judge succession 2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11 § Template:End U.S. judge succession 2 until a consensus is reached. Magioladitis (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]