User talk:Goodone121

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

220 house gop reps isn't a razor thin margin. It's actually pretty good as only 218 are needed for control and it may even be 221 as a race has yet to be called in California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:2100:33E0:C56E:E078:8EEA:185E (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in the United States

I saw over on the 2025 in the United States article you added the bare URL template, why not just save everyone time and just add the title instead of adding the template? Or am I missing something? skarz (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do that because to actually add the citation template would take too long. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plurality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who's 'we'?

I think it's useful to have the term-end here whatever the 'we' may have done before. Terms at the Fed (14 years; a recent vice chair stepped down as VC but is continuing with his still-long remaining term on the board; it's a critical component for the independence of the FRB (not as strong a component as life for federal judges up to and including the Supreme Court, built into the government via the Constitution, but stronger than, like, FDA today (I think I'm correct on FDA being one U.S. federal 'independent agency' with a recent management change))) I think are important to have in the encyclopedia. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC) If you'd rather have this on the article talk page I'll move it over there. Swliv (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so others can also reply. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Hopefully a bit more easily readable there, too.) Swliv (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment to make there, Bettering the Wiki? Swliv (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a clear typo that I had corrected in Christianity

I fixed what was clearly an incorrect phrasing or typo. What was written was "one of more of". I corrected the same to "one or more of". Is this really not constructive? After this your message asks me to "familiarise" myself "with our policies and guidelines". Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotamre (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, you removed a WP:short description without any discussion on the article's Talk page. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that WP would think of even such clear typos corrections as unconstructive. Kindly revert the revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotamre (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oxford University

The source isn’t Oxford University. It’s Samuel L. Popkin. I don’t understand why you would add Oxford. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but even with the correct attribution now, the grammatical style doesn't work and actually confuses the reader and makes them think Popkin is referring to the subsequent phrase which has nothing to do with him. You also repeated the same "according to" phrase twice in the same paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]