Dralwik

Welcome!

Hello, Dralwik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lst27 21:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your earlier efforts.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You wikified death-related info of Eunice Sanborn. But there's a question at the talk page that you didn't answer. Georgia guy (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

What are your thoughts in regards to adding all CDPs over 100,000 to the list? In addition to Arlington and Honolulu, there are four in Nevada (Paradise, Sunrise Manor, Spring Valley, and Enterprise) and one each in California (East Los Angeles) and Florida (Brandon) according to the census website. I began a discussion list on Talk:List of United States cities by population page under the headline CDPs. Thanks. --Moreau36--Discuss 18:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand your line of logical with the response you left on my talk page but I don't feel the majority of people think in the same way. Being a vast country, there are several states that share city names. For Wikipedia, that is the reason why there are wikilinks, to provide additional information for the reader. Also, I am sure that residents of Duluth, WI are 100% aware there is not a venue by the name of "Arena at Gwinnet Center" in their area. The same for Columbia, Maryland and Columbia, South Carolina. While the cities may be the same, the venue (Merriweather Post Pavilion), is well-known in the South so the connection with Maryland is instant. Itsbydesign (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Young People’s Chorus of New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chorus (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) 13:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you still interested in coordinating a Wikimania event in Chicago? Marcus Qwertyus 08:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, no. I forgot I must have volunteered myself for it, and while I hope to be in Chicago by 2014 for grad school, I have enough on my plate. Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey man I was hoping to have your input on some new points posted to the talk section of Maduro, particularly the recent comments that "CIA will kill" his opponent, when his opponent is liked internationally, and his shutting down of an airport to prevent his opponent (Capriles) from landing. I have three Venezuelan sources listed and was hoping to run at least with the shutting down of the airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You linked to the wrong Warren Texas. He was from Warren, Tyler County, Texas not Warren City. The clues to which one are in his obituary- 'First Baptist Church of Warren' and 'Mount Pisgah Cemetery near Woodville'. A google search puts both of these places in Tyler County. Just letting you know....William 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Thanks for the correction; I'm not a Texan. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Editor,

If you want to change the principle of sorting entries in 'List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office' article by changing dates from the country's independence to the date of the leader's entry into office, then please apply this rule consistently throughout the whole article, not just to a single person. So please correct the dates of the Prime Minister of Brunei, and the heads of state of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Montenegro. I remember them off the top of my head to have taken office before their country's independence. And please create a second entry for Hassanal Bolkiah, who only assumed the position of head of government upon the country's independence. ZBukov (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1870 may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input on the motion pending in the Manning arbitration case. However, please note that on the proposed decision page, only the elected arbitrators may cast votes. Your input would, however, be welcome on the talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, sorry about that. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This has been debated already, please get consensus before removing the numbers and adding dates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I just posted on the section although I don't see anyone advocating for the numbers. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please revert your recent move of Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois to Same-sex marriage in Illinois, also the links to it: the State Governor has not yet signed the bill, so it is not yet law. In other similar cases (e.g. Washington State, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey) we waited for the Governor's signature, so Illinois should be treated similarly. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. The Governor has explicitly said that he will sign it and the bill is just waiting on assembling people for a signing ceremony, so reverting everything for a few days at most and then moving everything back is just unnecessary server work. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage in Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Quinn (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) 09:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Requested_move_09_November_2013. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear fellow editor,

There is already a discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_current_state_leaders_by_date_of_assumption_of_office#Personal_titles) on the talk page of the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office article about the inclusion or exclusion of titles. Instead of blanket mass-reverts and few-word arguments in the edit summary fields, you'd be more than welcome to contribute to the discussion there. ZBukov (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I noticed you edited the results table on the Honduran general election, 2013 article. There is currently a dispute about which format better serves the article. Can you share your opinion on Talk:Honduran general election, 2013. Thanks! Pristino (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your thoughts on a compromise version of the results table would be welcome. Cheers, Number 57 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alice Kagawa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santa Fe and Ceramics (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) 09:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you help me to understand why the page 'Alice Kagawa Parrott' was changed to 'Alice Kagawa'? 'Alice Kagawa Parrott' is the name that appears with her work in museum collections and her oral history interview in the Archives of American Art. It seems like it should be 'Alice Kagawa Parrott' on Wikipedia, but looks like the name was changed shortly after the article was created. Thanks. StaceyEOB (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The page was originally "Alice kagawa" and Parrott seems to have never made it into the article title. You can see on the page history. I can move it, but the page never had Parrott in the title in the first place. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I agree that her article should be situated at Alice Kagawa Parrott and I've moved it there. The article was started by Aakeefe as Alice kagawa and I think Dralwik just moved the page to capitalize Kagawa. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 16:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I was just capitalizing the last name; since the body of the article used Kagawa I didn't take much notice of the married name. I also put my reply above (changed to reflect the move) on Stacey's talk page. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you everyone! I'm sorry for misunderstanding. We had an edit-a-thon yesterday and I'm trying to help smooth out what I can from yesterday. Gobonobo has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting since we're all very much still learning. Thank you both! StaceyEOB (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Thanks for working on articles like Alice Kawaga Parrott; you're helping bring visibility to names a lot of people (myself included), did not know. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dralwik, please note that the first president of Equatorial Guinea, Francisco Macías Nguema changed his name in 1976. So I guess the pipe is appropriate there, as the article title uses his original name. ZBukov (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I figured commonname overrode the new name so I took it off, but I won't revert it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

List of state leaders in 1973 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Arnold

List of state leaders in 1981 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queen Elizabeth

List of state leaders in 2007 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kenneth Hall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1971, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Arnold (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) 08:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

About your recent change to The Outfield's page: I question your use of the word "tidying" to describe removing links. Are the links non-functional? Is the page and the reader better served by their not being there?

Not speaking as an Outfield fan. Just tending to disagree with the less-is-more concept in terms of online encyclopediae. Morfusmax (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concern Morfusmax, although when it comes to external links I do lean towards the less-is-more: the official site, some neutral music-centered database like Allmusic, and then let Google handle something like a fan club. I went back and readded the Youtube channel, although I don't think social networks tend to be proper general info links for an encyclopedia. Specific posts for major events are fine imo, but links to the overall channels are too much clutter for not enough worth.

Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1965, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shotgun (song) (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) 09:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead that's fine. I will cover the two remaining years of the 60s if you don't mind.

User:Tromboy 3:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I plan on going in order (69, then 70, then 71...) so once you're done with 61/62, feel free to start on the 80s or finish up the 90s. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Im fine with pretty much any wording that means the same as I provided. The current wording I agree is very vauge and that was my idea at the time but my proposal is basicly the 5 colors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1973, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Flack (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) 08:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#Kentucky_Final_Order

Kentucky: Should Kentucky be re-added as dark green? An order was issued and a date given for when it goes into effect. Traditionally on the SSM map, a jurisdiction is added even before it goes into effect. My only concern is that "Government/court announced intention to recognize" also seems accurate in this case. However, on the SSM map "Colors higher in the list override those lower down."

Colorado: A green ring should be added for Colorado per talk.

Also, are you okay with me suggesting edits on your talk page or does that bother you? (Apologies if it bothers you.) --Prcc27 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with suggested edits; Kentucky is a rather confusing case with the reversions and I've mentioned it in the US map RFC. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

From the talk page discussions, it seems that you also disagree with Plumber's(illegal) proposal on removing striping for "simplicity". Just for the sake of formality, can you register your opinion in the proposal section. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and made an RfC anyways. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you participated in the discussion at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Proposal_1_.28Mark_Nevada.2C_Colorado.2C_and_Oregon_medium_blue.29. I was for the sake of formality (and to help the eventual RfC-closer), if can you re-register your opinion in the RfC section. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please update Kentucky?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA_map#Kentucky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:World_homosexuality_laws_map#Kentucky

Could you also update Colorado and Tennessee please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:World_homosexuality_laws_map#Colorado

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:World_homosexuality_laws_map#Tennessee

Thank You, Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Utah should probably also be updated on the Homosexuality map. Especially since there's a ring for marriages that were performed in Pennsylvania, even though it's not legal there. As for Colorado, even though they have other partnerships, unlike other states- they recognize same-sex marriage for tax purposes and ssc can file state and federal taxes jointly. That's why I suggested a ring be added for Colorado.

Thank You, Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Got the maps mixed up. Will do. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Colorado too? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, a circle on the civil union color. I wish the Supreme Court would hurry up and make the entire US dark blue already. Besides all the real world benefits and progress, it'll also make these maps easier to maintain. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's what's interesting about the United States of America, since it is a Federation not a Unitary state; same-sex marriage is decided at the state level rather than the federal level (for now). Also, it's possible that a law will be passed that will legalize same-sex marriage (rather than a supreme court decision). --Prcc27 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry to bother you but.. I noticed that the World Homosexuality Map has less rings (for Mexico) than the other maps. Is there a reason for that or...? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Mexico is honestly kind of a mess, and it's a simple lack of coordination between the maps. At some point tomorrow I'll synchronize them. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 06:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you very much! --Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm new to this and i've noticed you update the World Homosexuality Map a lot and following with the comment above i would like to please ask you if you could update Mexico in the world map. I've seen that CU law has passed in over two more states and that is not reflected in the world map. Can you please do that for me :/ I honestly don't know how to... Thanks a looooooooot, KUKI <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.186.96 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll try, but I don't quite see what the new states are. Note that the marriage equality map won't show civil unions, as they are overridden by the Mexican government recognizing same-sex marriage. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I mean for example Campeche, where a civil union law has passed and it hasn't been updated: http://sipse.com/mexico/aprueban-union-civil-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo-en-campeche-67280.html (In Spanish) i'm not quite sure what you mean with civil unions being overidden, for example Colima or Jalisco can be seen on the map. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.186.96 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the overridden bit is for File:World marriage-equality laws.svg, not the World Homosexuality Laws map. Yeah, I can add Campeche. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, we were talking about different maps, I see. Thank you, I'm a map freak and I like to see them updated x) I would do it myself as well but I've got no idea :\ Thank you for your work!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.186.96 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please fix the Indiana and Ohio rings? Ohio's ruling was in Cincinnati I believe. Also, what do you think of the suggestion I made at the talk? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Nevermind, it looks like we're debating where the rings should go). I still think something should be done about Indiana asap. Whether it's placed on the capital or placed on the ruling location. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I noticed your recent edits: A. change "allow" to "recognize" in section title of "States with stayed rulings to recognize same-sex marriage" (emphasis mine), and B. if Ohio is added, Kentucky qualifies as well. Note that the table title still reads "States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage."

I will concur with the edits. Just a few thoughts; no need to reply.

I know there's a distinction in three different styles of rulings: 1. The Ohio (Henry v. Himes, Apr. 14, 2014) ruling finds the state's same-sex marriage ban (i.e. amendments) unconstitutional, and forces the state to recognize out-of-state marriages, but not perform them. 2. The Utah ruling also finds the state's same-sex marriage ban (i.e. amendment) unconstitutional, forces the state to recognize out-of-state marriages and to issue licenses to perform them, and 3. The Kentucky ruling, in the final district court order (Bourke v. Beshear, Feb. 26, 2014), orders the same-sex marriage ban (i.e. amendment and statutes) "void and unenforceable," presumably forces the state to recognize out-of-state marriages, and does not explicitly state whether the state shall issue licenses to perform in-state marriage.

If we want to get technical, we'll have to look at the final orders in each district court case and note the exact status of each case. But as many of these cases are headed for appeal, I think the issue will become moot. I would say at this point to go in a more general direction; so that any stayed ruling for same-sex marriage, whether in-state issuance of marriage licenses/certificates or out-of-state recognition, would make the list; however, the ruling would have to specify that marriage amendments are unconstitutional.

I am against including Tennessee (Tanco v. Haslam, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463, Mar. 14, 2014) in the list for now because of that issue (i.e. it does not find Tenn.'s marriage amendment unconstitutional), also that ruling is only a preliminary injunction (with a ruling on the merits to come later) and it applies only to the six plaintiffs, not statewide.

But when I notice this, I also see that the Texas case (De Leon v. Perry, 2014 WL 715741, Feb. 26, 2014) is similar to Tennessee in that it also does not find Texas's marriage amendments unconstitutional, and also the ruling is a preliminary injunction (i.e. not a ruling on the merits). However this injunction is broader than the one against Tennessee, as it applies to the entire state, and forces Texas to recognize out-of-state marriage, as well as to allow it to be performed in-state. Because of it being broader, I lean toward Texas staying in the list, but not 100%.

As you probably know, both the Tennessee and Texas rulings are under interlocutory appeal (i.e. appeal without a final ruling in the court below).MarkGT (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the elaboration, and we're on the same page with respect to TN and TX. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since you contributed to or were otherwise involved in the original afD nomination, you may or may not wish to comment on the new afD nomination, found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination) I intend on leaving this note to everyone who edited the first AFD and has not yet contributed to the new discussion. Thanks! :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Arkansas might have to be striped because the ruling might not apply to all counties. [1] Also, we might have to remove Arkansas from tables possibly..? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Prcc27 Yeah, right now I'm holding off on the striping until the state Supreme Court weighs in. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks like both world maps and the north american map needs to be updated. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please turn Idaho yellow (beige)? Prcc27 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry to bother you (especially if you're not interested) but could you please update Idaho on CousinMarriageWorld.svg to match this? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) I think I can do this one. @Prcc27: You want Idaho a medium red, right? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

@EvergreenFir: Correct, Thank you! --Prcc27 (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

EvergreenFir Thanks for covering Prcc27 so quickly! I don't mind the assistance at all. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 13:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are there any Inkscape tutorials? I was trying to figure out how to change the current SSM USA map from red/gold stripes to sold gold, but can't. I can do solid color changes just fine, but stripe to solid (or FSM forbid solid to stripe) is beyond my ken. Thought I'd ask. Ping me in a reply please :) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

EvergreenFir No clue on Inkscape striping; note the SSM in US map, unlike the others, is never edited in inkscape. Instead, open it up with notepad and you should find the code simple enough to scroll through. Note two main sections: the composite coding before each state's outline, i.e. here's the current stay striping:

<g id="stay-constitutionbanmore">

<use xlink:href="#part1of2" class="stay"/>

<use xlink:href="#part2of2" class="constitutionbanmore"/>

</g>

If you scroll pass the state outline gobbledygook, you'll see each state listed with its status. That's what I change to update a color.

A fuller walk-through is at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#Guide to editing this map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

That would be so much easier! I can typically decipher coding like this. I'll play around with it! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. The Inkscape maps, I don't dare bother with the coding. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seriously that was super easy. Used "replace" function of Wordpad and did "stay-constitutionbanmore" → "stay" excluding the first instance. Now all gold. I feel so accomplished lol. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

[2] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The changes made to Lebanon and Indonesia made by Elahi Ryan https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg#Changes_without_consensus ? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

His added bubble in the southern Philippines was alright though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Philippines#Summary_table Marawi applies shari'a to the 95% of its residents that are Muslim. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, if it's not too much trouble, could you please make a better version of this map [3] so I could present it to the talk page? Thanks, --Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

So trimming the civil union colors? Sure, although I don't think that discussion will get anywhere. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

(Edit) Hey, sorry to bother you again but could you please make a better version of this map [4] possibly even just make an svg version of it? This same-sex marriage map is also currently in use [5] but might need to be switched to svg. We may not be able to change the same-sex partnerships map, but we can surely make a same-sex marriage map and same-sex union map. Thanks, --Prcc27 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, trying to get two separate maps isn't going to work. Maybe tomorrow I can create the maps, but with the discussion on the SSM in US map talk page going in a circle I feel it'd be a wasted effort. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, well I kinda already added the map to 5 English articles and 4 Spanish articles. I definitely don't think the civil unions map would be a wasted effort, one of the people in the talk who was against getting rid of civil unions said it was fine to create a separate civil unions map (which is also on 5 English articles). --Prcc27 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It'd be best if you rolled those back. Bluntly I don't see what you're trying to accomplish here, and this seems like spreading maps around the Wiki just to get the point across that marriages and civil unions are different. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I updated your SSM-only map to match the striping on the main map and darkened the ban color. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit) Thank you very much. I'm not very familiar with WP:POINT (first time seeing it) but my reasoning behind having different maps is that on same-sex marriage articles the same-sex partnership map might be a little too much. Furthermore, it isn't meant to discredit and replace the partnership map. That's why at least 1 of the articles has all three maps. Also, someone who was against changing the partnership map suggested that I make all the maps I want. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Prcc27 Truth be told I do like the simpler marriage only map, although rather as a text-editable SVG. I have a copy of the SVG on my computer; if after the three days no one has voiced objection to your new map, I can upload the SVG version. Still not sold on a separate civil union only map, since those unions are really only notable in states without marriage and you have local registries of unions to worry about. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The civil union map is necessary because it includes states that also have same-sex marriage. For the articles that touch on these unions only it is very helpful since most people don't even realize those states still have them. There is already a local registries map. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dralwik. I would please ask that you do not upload the map(s) that Prcc27 is asking for. The consensus roundly rejected their suggested revisions (i.e., removing CU/DP content), so they made brand new maps with said rejected revisions and started posting them in lieu of (and in some case case in redundant conjunction with) the standard svg map we've been using, undermining the rejection of said revisions. Converting the new maps over to SVG would be a waste and enable more disruptive edits. Please don't upload them. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thegreyanomaly No worries, I am not going to. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just an FYI, while I still firmly oppose the marriage-only map (which is fortunately out of use), I made an SVG map of the non-text editable CU/DP PNG map Prcc27 was putting everywhere and uploaded it at File:Same-sex unions in the United States.svg. I have kept consistent colors with File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg (though it seems Prcc27 wants to break that consistency in regards to the shade of red). Anyways, I just thought to keep you in the loop. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for letting me know. I have no objections to a civil union map, although I don't quite see the need for a separate map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I requested that United States cities and counties with other partnerships be added to the world homosexual relationships and expressions map but so far nobody has responded. Would you be willing to discuss? [6] --Prcc27 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you mind adding a ring for Wisconsin on the world maps? [7] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I think that's an excellent suggestion. The White Album presents an marvelous case study by which to elucidate Wikipedia's article titling policy. I closed the discussion in a way that was counter to my own instinct; were I Wiki-King, I'd have moved the article. I believe consensus to support a move might one day be achieved, if the argument for the move were advanced in the right way. This would involve conceding that The Beatles is a fine name for the article -- that the question of "The Beatles vs. The White Album" is muddled and close and likely forever unsettled. However, "The Beatles (album)" is not the best name for the article, in light of WP:NATURALDIS. Essentially, this is the course you are pursuing.

Unfortunately, the RM I just closed was too crowded by the issue of "OFFICIALNAME vs. COMMONNAME" for it to have gained consensus on WP:NATURAL point. I don't think the move review should succeed, because I don't think consensus support exists for this argument yet. However, I hope the closure I made will refocus the discussion away from "officialname" silliness. In so doing, the next RM will be more likely to concern itself with a different point: disambiguating terms are best avoided. I think consensus could, one day soon, be formed on that basis to support a move to the White Album. If the argument is about "The Beatles vs. the White Album", a large number of Beatles fans will always disagree, for a reason that is not wholly absurd (nor against policy), because the name "The Beatles" has a large currency. If the argument became a question of "(album)" or not "(album)", I think more folks can unite around the beauty of avoiding parentheses. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't really answer your question, did I? You were asking whether I thought "NATURALDIS" was a good argument for a Move Review. Personally, I don't think so. Move Review is about whether a closure is proper, and is not a forum for rearguing matters from the orginal debate. Even though no one used your exact phrasing, the point of "NATURALDIS" was raised in the nomination and by Cuchullain. It wasn't what people chose to discuss for the most part (even though I wish they had.) However, there will be no hard feelings from me if you raise the point in the Move Review and people accept it. I'm a bit of a process wonk sometimes, but if you can garner consensus support for the argument, more power to you. So far, this issue has been a mess. Any approach that brings about final clarity is fine by me. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, would you be okay with updating the Mexican same-sex marriage map for Baja California as well as the World homosexuality map for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes? (Btw, I just learned how to edit SVG text editable maps today). --Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't have inkscape btw. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you update this map please..? [8] --Prcc27 (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this might be a lot to ask for but could you please update this map [9] (Idaho and Kansas shouldn't be there), this map [10] (Colorado), and [11] (Kansas). I wouldn't be offended if you decided not to update the maps, I personally think the maps are a little bit confusing.

Anyway, I made another proposal to the North America Map. [12] --Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wyoming might have to be excluded from the map File:Former constitutional bans on same-sex unions.svg. For some reason the map only deals with constitutional amendments against ssm; not statutory bans.

Also, I think we have another rouge jurisdiction File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg#St. Louis Rogue. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! --Prcc27 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your updated maps on List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type. However, Wyoming should be removed from the last map, as that is a statutory ban. I'm not entirely sure how to fix it or I'd do it myself... S51438 (talk)

Sluuuuuuurp. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear user, I dont know you like European footbal or no, but there is a question about famous footbaler Pele's article. About his confesion to had a gay sex. The discussing is here [13]. Please take part if you can. M.Karelin (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does Colorado now get two rings or does the ring just move to Denver instead. [14] --Prcc27 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd imagine the ring moves to Denver -- which is virtually the same spot, just a hair to the southeast. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I hope I'm not bothering you (again) but I was trying to update the United States map for Colorado (just in case we get consensus) but my map ends up like this: [15]. What am I doing wrong..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Did you create a new triple striping combination in the striping definitions, below the color definitions? I have a copy, here. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't. I will keep that in mind next time. Thank you! --Prcc27 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Dralwik: Same-sex marriage legalized but not yet in effect. [16] Both world maps, the North American map and the county map need to be updated. (Sorry for rushing on your page and suggesting all of this!!!) --Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

On my phone so can't do svg edits, but will do tomorrow. (These notices don't bother me, suggest away.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! (I forgot to mention this map [17]). Prcc27 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This map needs to be updated too. [18] Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I won't be able to get on the computer for several hours so could you please shade Miami-Dade County yellow (if you get to it before me)..? [19] Prcc27 (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I just did it. Prcc27 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I tried a bit but couldn't get the county outline to look nice so gave up (and forgot to let you know). Feel free to keep suggesting maps. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the states in the Fourth Circuit can be marked as "Government/court announced intention to legalize" on the World Same-sex marriage map. Could you please add them as yellow..? Thank you. Prcc27 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe the Circuit could be marked as blue if it's being counted as a law not yet in effect... --Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also, Virginia was never marked as yellow on the North America map. --Prcc27 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you think WV, NC, SC qualifies as "Government/court announced intention to legalize"? Prcc27 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

We probably could include them on that map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

IMO, I think they should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done, and I've also tweaked the North American and county maps to match your new US map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your edits on the world maps... If Virginia is blue on the US map then it should probably also be blue on the homosexuality map. As for the Same-sex marriage map... I don't mind Virginia being yellow, but I think Colorado, Luxembourg, Scotland and Costa Rica qualify as yellow as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think jurisdictions could be colored yellow on the world same-sex marriage map before it goes into effect. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I want to see what happens with the US map first. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But the world ssm map is different. there is already a yellow color for "intention to legalize" that could easily be rendered "legalized or intent to legalize." Also, Virginia is already colored as blue on the US map so it should be blue on the homosexuality map as well. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather not change them to yellow yet. I know that's the opposite of what I'd like to see happen (which is ideally three colors for the US map: recognize marriage now, in process, ban, plus a civil union color for the world map), but consistency amongst the maps takes precedence for now imo. Will color Virginia though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, could you please color Virginia blue on the World homosexuality map too..? Prcc★27 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think Florida needs a green ring, possibly on the capital because it's the state recognizing the marriages..? [20] Prcc★27 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add a green ring on both world maps to Florida..? [21] Prcc★27 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is the state recognizing the marriage though, or is this case being lumped into the appeals process with the county decisions? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, good question. The state has 30 days to appeal. Prcc★27 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please update this map Kansas and Wyoming to what it they looked like before the tenth circuit ruling [22] Prcc★27 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, could you also update Missouri..? [23] Prcc★27 (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now that the new United States map is in, can you color Colorado and Virginia yellow on the World Same-sex marriage map and remove Virginia and replace Colorado with civil unions with a marriage ring (Boulder County, Denver County, Pueblo County) on the world homosexuality map..? Prcc★27 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Will do when I return. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks! I forgot to mention that other jurisdictions that legalized same-sex marriage but haven't had them go into effect yet need to be marked as yellow on the world ssm map and removed on the world homosexuality map as well. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I hope I'm not bothering you when you're in the process of updating maps.. I noticed your update to the Worldwide laws regarding homosexual relationships and expression map and just want to mention that Scotland (not sure if they have civil unions currently, but they don't have marriage yet), Luxembourg, and Costa Rica need to be updated as well. Also, there are probably other regional maps (like the Europe map) that might need updating, as well as implementing a new plan for the world ssm map (which I already brought up at the talk)..?

Thank you, --Prcc★27 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

(My deepest apologies, that was probably you reverting the map for the time being..) Prcc★27 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see there's already a debate on the world homosexuality map; I'm hesitant to kick off Scotland/Luxembourg/Costa Rica with an objection raised. I realize that means the world map is treated differently than the US map, but I'm conflicted on whether to go ahead on the world maps. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

But there's already a transition color on the world ssm map (and the wording can be altered a little bit). There's no objections to my proposal on the World ssm map so I think the transition color should be expanded to jurisdictions that legalized same-sex marriage. Prcc★27 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would have but I didn't know whether to use my wording or your wording. My wording was on the template first, you never put your wording on the template. On the template you said "Do not revert the consensus version again" but I didn't think your wording got consensus.. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add a marriage ring to Boulder County..? Prcc★27 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

(world ssm map)

Could you please add Kansas to this map [24] and remove Kansas from this map [25] since their ban wasn't struck down after all..? Prcc★27 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state Nebraska and South Dakota should be dark red (almost black). Could you please update this map..? [26] Prcc★27 (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ooh. Sorry, I didn't really notice Virginia but if Colorado is off the map then Virginia probably should be too. Otherwise Colorado could be re-added. Sorry for not noticing that. Prcc★27 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The World homosexuality map has a ring for Colorado but the world ssm map doesn't. Could you please add one to the world ssm map..? Prcc★27 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so not only does Colorado need a ring but Florida now needs to be yellow on the world ssm map. Also, could you please add Colorado to this map [27] and Florida to the North America map..? Prcc★27 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pretty soon Florida will need to be solid yellow (which hasn't been updated yet) with a recognition ring. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I didn't know if you wanted to add a green ring to the world maps [28], especially since that ring will probably be replaced by a blue dot for Broward County real soon. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you please clarify the information regarding same sex marriages in Mexican state of Coahuila. Is that only recognition, or full marriage (they say it is in force since 17th of Senptember, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline). 217.76.1.22 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I recently said "LA shouldn't have a marriage ring (same-sex marriage is legal there)." That was a typo; I meant same-sex marriage is not legal there. However, Louisiana should have a yellow dot on the World same-sex marriage map. (Also, the world same-sex marriage map needs MO to be green for recognition with a blue ring for rogue jurisdiction, and Arizona and Wyoming need a green ring). Why is Colorado and Florida not marked as blue..? I'm confused, if Scotland is blue on both maps then why not FL/CO? IMO FL, CO, Scot., etc. should be yellow on the world same-sex marriage map. As for the homosexual relations and expression map.. wouldn't they be blue..? If a temporary stay is akin to legalization on every other map/article, why not the world map..? (I'm a little confused). Otherwise, Florida needs a green ring too. Sorry for bothering you and sorry for the typo! :/

--Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also, I don't know if I can edit the world maps anymore. I'm not a good artist and I don't know how to edit the map without messing up the vector! :/ Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The maps are updated, although I left Florida stayed/intent to legalize for now. Given the rapid state of flux for same-sex marriage in the United States, three months is likely too long of a time for us to predict how a ruling will pan out. Right now, I lean towards taking a de facto approach to US states: if you can get a marriage license and the state isn't fighting anymore (like Colorado), then we can color it blue. I realize this means a different approach than Scotland and company, but I'm more comfortable with that then having a marriage blue Florida three months in advance. Light blue on the US map is OK by me since we have the footnote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_West_Virginia. Trying to get the file moved to a new name. Thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you mind removing South Carolina's ring on the recognition map and possibly other maps..? [29] It's okay if you do mind... Prcc27 (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nah, we can take them off. I realized that getting in tussles over the map is taking away from the joy of seeing couples marry in unexpected states, so I'll be cooler. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Prcc27: Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dralwik! Now someone is trying to protect the Same-sex Marriage template from even more editing. Would you be willing to disagree with this proposal at [Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection]? Difbobatl (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Kansas map help. Finally figured out where Harvey and McPherson counties are (9th district). Could've sworn I fixed it, but yet again, my updated map forgot them... MarkGT (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@MarkGT, you're welcome. It's easy to overlook counties when a state has triple digit numbers of them. When I work on the map, I have a Kansas county map open in another tab. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I finally worked out how to edit the Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg map myself, and took so long that I ended up saving it moments after you did. Mw843 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. Once you get it figured out, the main US map is quick to fix. If you're changing a state's color, it's just a matter of finding the state in the list towards the end of the file and changing the color ID. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think notice was provided but your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Missouri_footnote_on_Template:Samesex_marriage_in_USA_map. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sorry, I originally brought the issue to the wrong noticeboard, but now I brought it to the DRN which seems to be the right one! Prcc27 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brenner_v._Scott#Judge_Hinkle_is_losing_it..._.28commentary.29

96.59.130.9 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

We need to discuss how we're going to have the same-sex marriage map for Florida. Currently, the map reflects the status of same-sex marriage before the federal court decision. If we want to have the map reflect Florida before it went into effect, we'd either have to color the whole state gold (with the exception of Miami-Dade), or add Washington County to one of the gold counties. What do you think? Prcc27 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just posted on your talk as you posted on mine. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I feel like there should either be more counties colored gold or less counties colored that way in order to be consistent since some state court decisions dealt with individual cases only. Prcc27 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will do in the morning. Another musical area I want to work on is getting the article on The Church up to standards. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome, I may even help you with that Church article. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, not too long ago I accepted one of your edits at the Same-sex marriage in the United States Wikipedia page. Have you ever considered becoming a WP:REVIEWER..? Prcc27 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not really, although I might look into it. I'm content staying at this level. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dralwik! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think I've got it done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

When you re-added ISIS-controlled territory in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, you forgot to re-add the city of Derna in Libya, a city of over 100,000 people. I think this should be added, as this indicates that gay people are killed there. 50.155.88.106 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

unfortunately I haven't byt I assume that from worldstatesman.org. on Romania page there is mentioned that basescu was suspended but he was still president. on Andorra page there is no such information Aight 2009 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the basis for moving the article on Komi Klassou? As far as I know that is the commonly used name. What makes you think the full name is more frequently used? Everyking (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The number of Google News results, especially for the Togolese sources I could find. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 12:40, 7 June 2015 (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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It needs to be sub-divided into Prior 1970's, 1970's & 1980's :) GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Faroe Islands had Legalized Same-Sex Marriage. :)

Congrats Faroe Islands.

God Bless Faroe Islands. :)

Glory to Gays, Lesbian and Bisexuals.

http://local.fo/faroe-islands-legalises-same-sex-marriage/

http://lgbt.fo/?p=2783

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/29/faroe-islands-legalises-same-sex-marriage/

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/faroe-islands-passes-sex-marriage/#gs.vt358e4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.84.136 (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

http://cphpost.dk/news/faroe-islands-says-yes-to-same-sex-marriage.html

http://www.towleroad.com/2016/04/faroe-islands/

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/05/01/faroe-islands-legalize-same-sex-marriage/

http://sdgln.com/news/2016/04/29/faroe-islands-legalizes-same-sex-marriage

https://theperchybird.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/faroe-islands-approves-same-sex-marriage-and-adoption/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.84.136 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Na‑Dene languages. Since you had some involvement with the Na‑Dene languages redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks for your work on the List of metropolitan statistical areas. I was doing some work on some more-neglected related pages (the state-level lists, mainly) and noticed thanks to your edits that we have 2020 population estimates now. I didn't realize that estimates were even given in census years. I am contemplating starting to go through and update the state-level lists (and wherever else this data may find itself), but given that we'll have county-level official census data next month in legacy format (and September 30 on data.census.gov), I am debating whether or not this effort is worth it if it will soon be supplanted by the census. Tbh, I had originally planned to just wait until we got official census data, but since you've updated the big list I'm inclined to think all these pages should be in sync if possible. Wanted to know what you think about this before I jump in. Cheers.

For what it's worth, I think the individual state lists can probably wait for the Census numbers, especially since comparing the state estimates to the released Census state figures shows that the estimates can be off by half a million people or so for states like New York. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, thanks for the speedy reply.

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply