Archives

Archive 1

You said "a pre-statehood proposed territorial division". Really? That seems to be a very fine distinction. So we have "List of U.S. state partition proposals". Is there a page for "List of U.S. pre-statehood partition proposals"? I suspect not, because it may be too fine a point to differentiate these cases. Is the Sequoyah proposal not serious enough? They wrote a constitution. They voted on it and it passed. But having an idea written about in the Walsenburg World-Independent is ok to include? :--) IMHO a list page is needed where there is a structure to the question but a search does not help find the thing. Doing a search, the results look fairly random and unhelpful and they do not include the Sequoyah proposal on the first page. Finally, does "a state partition" mean "a partition of a state" or "a partition that creates a state". If it is only the first definition, then you are correct that the Sequoyah page does not qualify. But why do you think that only the first definition is correct? I am adding a link to a good, quality page in a page that has problems. It can only improve the page. Is this a bad thing? Does it merit an automatic reversion? Why? RayKiddy (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RayKiddy: Regarding your question about the meaning "a state partition", the introduction clearly states and explains the scope of the article as "substantive proposals, both successful and unsuccessful, put forward since the nation's founding to partition or set off a portion of an existing U.S. state or states so that the region might either join another state or create a new state". Regarding the broader issues you raise concerning the page, I agree with you that there needs to be some standard for inclusion/exclusion developed, what constitutes a "substantive proposal" to partition a state. Talk to you there. P.S. Please, on all talk pages, place a new discussion topic under existing/older ones. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My instincts tell me that editors Focus on content (who just showed up on Wikipedia today), Tscdrwh & Bluealbion, may well be the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I messaged about this on the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tscdrwh. I did make one revert before knowing this person’s edits was a nuisance on other pages, and then noticed this person made an account nearly identical to my name yesterday (User:Bluea1bion). I’m not involved with these other accounts. Bluealbion (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at this edit, is "sovereign nation states" the same as "independent entities"? I wasn't making that assumption based on the name alone. Assuming that article is showing the full growth/expansion of the United States, there would need to be a place to include Northern Mariana Islands (and maybe Provisional Government of Oregon). Is there a different section of the page where they'd fit in your mind? Or how would you describe them? –Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Impeachment process against Richard Nixon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iazyges: – Thanks for doing this. Drdpw (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; I'm happy to take on anything related to Nixon. In spite of everything, our greatest president IMO (and my favorite). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Impeachment process against Richard Nixon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Impeachment process against Richard Nixon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please look at the revision I did to the Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States page? It tells you why you shouldn't add the picture you added. Here's the revision: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1114859153 2601:40A:8480:1750:0:0:0:11B0 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drdpw, can you reply to this message? Please. 2601:40A:8480:1750:6415:DF2:3E69:4D2C (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsure what sort of a response you are looking for here. Your reason for reverting to the previous picture seemed clear to me: you don't think the more informal photo of the current Roberts Court should be used and that the old, outdated formal picture should remain in place until the new formal picture is released. Is that accurate? If so, I'm okay with it. Drdpw (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes 2601:40A:8480:1750:6415:DF2:3E69:4D2C (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drdpw, I say yes to your reply. 2601:40A:8480:1750:C8BF:ED4B:6734:12C2 (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions on this seasons article. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Drdpw (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello Drdpw, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing, Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, I was hoping to ask about this revision to the article on the 2026 United States gubernatorial elections. I'm not sure why the addition is considered "speculation," as the sections on California and Georgia both contain lists of potential candidates, which are still present on the article with attached sources, similar to Alabama's. Should these two be removed as well? Thanks. Kafoxe (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Drdpw (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense, I just wanted to make sure there was consistency. Thank you for the clarification! Kafoxe (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Information is correct and thereby doesn't need a undo KingOfChairs (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit was reverted because this detail does not need a mention in the lead, which focuses on the office of speaker alone. Mention it in the article where the the Speaker pro tempore is mentioned. Drdpw (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Regarding eligibility of non-members, I was in process of putting together further info when you reverted. Your revert was therefore fine, but I have now inserted that info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While we're in the same ballpark, both the pro tempore emeritus title held by Chuck Grassley and speaker emerita title held by Nancy Pelosi are honorary titles with no real power. They are proverbial "gold watches" for past presiding members as tokens of appreciation. Neither is a presiding officer. You can't mention one without the other as they are both in the same vein, which is why the emeritus section is a fair compromise. Vjlmhds (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grassley was officially given that title by the full Senate.[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strom Thurmond was given the title because Jim Jeffords flipped the senate when he left the GOP, giving the Dems control in the middle of the 197th congress. It is an honorary title with no real power, and is not a presiding officer. What was done for Pelosi is the same thing. Neither Grassley nor Pelosi are presiding officers, nor should they be listed as such. They were both given honorary titles for their past service. The pro tempore emeritus position has been around longer, and people after Thurmond have since been bestowed the title, but it doesn't make them presiding officers. Can't acknowledge one and not the other...that's all I'm saying, as it's the same basic idea for each. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grassley got the title from the full Senate, whereas Pelosi got the title from a committee of the House Democratic caucus.[2]. So it’s similar but not quite the same. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely missing the point...they are honorary titles, with no power and they are not presiding officers. Getting too hung up on the minutiae and not seeing the big picture (aka forest --> trees). Grassley is NOT a presiding officer in the Senate, and shouldn't be listed as such. His title and Pelosi's mean the exact same - honorary for past accomplishments. Whether they were voted on by the full Senate or just committees don't mean anything. They're honorary titles meant as "lifetime achievement awards" to honor their past positions. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think who gives an award is important. I hope my Nobel Prize in Physics will be from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences rather than from the Nobel Women's Initiative (no offense intended). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just removed the emeritus/emerita mention from the page because neither is a considered to be a leadership position by their respective chamber according to their respective website. Drdpw (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I can live with this. My whole point was that Grassley/Pelosi's status as emeritus were both the same...gold watch/lifetime achievement awards for past service. Neither is a leadership position, and one isn't more worthy of a mention than the other. Treat them the same. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, but we'll have to be consistent

Howdy, I've no problem with deleting the 'president pro tempore emeritus' from the 118th United States Congress page. But it should be done on the preceding th US Congress pages, too. FWIW, the honorary title was adopted by the US Senate. Where's the 'speaker-emirta' honorary title was not adopted by the US House of Representatives. GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS - I would agree to removing the president pro tempore emeritus bit from the bio infoboxes of Strom Thurmond to Chuck Grassley as well. They're not constitutional offices & as you've accurately put it - they just 'gold watches', basically trivial. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that you reverted an edit saying that we do not mention what storms would be named. If that is true, why don't we remove the section from the 1991 No-Name Storm on the season page? ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mitch199811: Perhaps that sentence should be removed. There is no would have been named statement in the season articles for the 1997, 2005, 2006 unnamed sub / tropical storms (1987, 1988, 2011, 2013 either). It is not done for depressions either, which go unnamed, or for PTCs when included as other storms. Drdpw (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that the List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections has been split off from the too wide original List of speakers, I still have the same question about the 2023 election not displaying "Present" votes as do earlier elections, since we know that six members abstained in this election.
The information is found at 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, saying "On the fifteenth and final ballot, the six remaining anti-McCarthy holdouts voted "present", which reduced the threshold of votes needed for a majority from 218 to 215 members voting for a person by name, thus allowing McCarthy to be elected with 216 votes." I recognize that's a different article. I haven't checked to see whether all of the preceding "Present" votes listed here in this "List" article are specifically referenced here for this page. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you please engage with me in more good-faith dialogue and back-and-forth of my edits of US Senate and US Supreme Court pages? These reversions you make without providing a reason seem to go against the spirit of the site to open-mindedly follow the facts to collaboratively find the truth. I feel gaslit by the constant reversions. I appreciate the times when you do work on wording in more of a 'yes and' spirit to arrive at an altogether (hopefully) better final product.

Superb Owl (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your diligence with the "visit count" re: Poland. It's amazing how much attention this trip has gotten here on Wikipedia! Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't have to change every timeline yourself. We can get a bot to do it. Noah^Talk 16:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and I hope all is well. The short descriptor edits I added at the first five U.S. presidents seem to be better than just listing them as presidents. Including 'Founding Father' covers, in two words, a vast amount of the other accomplishments of these men. Washington and the rest of course did much more than serve as early presidents, and adding two words applies both brevity and a condensing descriptor to those other activities. Can we go with it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randy Kryn: I am inclined to stick with the standard short description used for all U.S. presidents. An additional descriptor could be added for several of them, but is not (as far as I know). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thought is to then follow up on this. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, they are all far more than a president as their sole descriptor. Adding 'Founding Father' to, say, Jefferson's short description (Founding Father, third president of the United States), and dropping the unneeded dates, covers his initial unprecedented accomplishments in two words. Keeping later presidents' summaries as is seems fine, including Monroe (who didn't really "make his mark" in the initial founding years), but for the four major founders, it doesn't seem enough, and feels like it's placing too tight of a wording on their overall significance. Please mull this over a bit, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has reverted the Adams short descriptor with a good edit summary. Listing just the presidency for these four major founders still seems "off", there should be more (adding the two words "Founding Father" brings a cornucopia of encapsulated accomplishments into play). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see; the issue then needs to be discussed on the respective talk pages. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States presidential line of succession, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People WILL get confused. If I said "I love the President of the United States" they will most likely think of Biden or something, not the band. Положение (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding This edit, at my count, in the discussion, there were 7 supports (6 under it and one back in the main voting section) and no explicit opposes to that wording. I just copt-pasted it from the discussion. I am flummoxed as to how copying the actual text that had unanimous approval is somehow "misrepresenting" the discussion. Can you elaborate? --Jayron32 11:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jayron32: There was Rfc consensus for at least a brief clause in lede but not for a full sentence: "…the participants largely agree that some mention in the lead is warranted. There does not appear to be consensus for the wording as proposed by the OP, but there are several proposals with various degrees of support - I leave it to the participants to agree on the best version". Your copy-paste edit was of a full sentence, and was simply attached to the end of a paragraph, thus looking like copy-paste add-on. In my subsequent edit, I took mention of the AIDS epidemic and included it within a sentence mentioning other key first term challenges – the assassination attempt, labor union fights, and the war on drugs. Before making the edit I looked at the wording discussion and considered where (and how) mention of the epidemic and the Reagan response fit best in light of the larger Rfc discussion. Hope this brings greater clarity. Drdpw (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. That is fine by me, I just don't appreciate being accused of mischaracterizing something when I merely copy-pasted the consensus version from the discussion. I have no problems with you improving upon my changes, but in the future, please don't ascribe malfeasance to me (or to others) when you don't know intent. I misrepresented nothing. I may have been less than perfect in execution, but I represented the discussion exactly as it happened. Improvements are welcome, accusations of bad faith are rather not. But I thank you for explaining your thinking, and I am fine with your improved wording. --Jayron32 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jayron32: The added sentence came from a discussion held while the Rfc was ongoing and did not take into account the emerging rough consensus for at least a brief clause in lede but not for a full sentence. In hindsight, stating something along those lines would have been more accurate and certainly more constructive, given that I did not mean to accuse you of malfeasance or of bad faith. Drdpw (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Drdpw. The sentence I added was decided at the RfC. Please see the section at the bottom of the RfC discussion. Needless to say we can consider your alternative proposals, but the consensus version should remain in the article until we decide on a replacement. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Please see the discussion immediately above and Talk:Ronald Reagan#Post-Rfc wording discussion, AIDS in lede. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh. Didn't even see that. thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there Drdpw - concerning this edit to off-season Atlantic hurricanes, I was wondering why you removed all of those systems. I originally added them because they exist in the meta data. While they might not have full track maps like official cyclones, they are still listed as tropical/subtropical depressions. Take 1954, for example, where you removed two: you can find both of them here, clearly listed as:

Jan. 27 23N 57W Subtropical Depression

And later: May 19 41N 31W Subtropical Depression

Because you already have edited the article since the edit in question, would you mind adding all of the missing systems in HURDAT back in? Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judiciary Act of 1789, § 1, 1 Stat. 73 (1789).

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, The the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.

The substance of the above emphasized text is still the law. See 28 U.S. Code, § 4 (2018).

What you are getting twisted is that the justice cannot execute his office until he takes his oath. Judiciary Act of 1789, § 7, 1 Stat. at 76 (1789).

Moreover, your confusion about vesting of the office is legally incorrect, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall himself in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 162 (1803):

Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State, was appointed, and as the law creating the office gave the officer a right to hold for five years independent of the Executive, the appointment was not revocable, but vested in the officer legal rights which are protected by the laws of his country.

To withhold the commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the Court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.

As the language makes clear, the officeholder's right to the office is what "vests," and that at the moment the Seal of the United States is affixed to the signed judicial commission.

I don't know where you got the wrong idea from... Next time, assume good faith and hit up my talk page if you doubt. Have fun undoing your reverts. - Foofighter20x (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi i am friendlyhsitorian i wont press the issue now but it by deleting a polite request despite the fact i brought examples and everything and you just refuse to engage i legit wanted to discuss this . Why are you so hostile ? i apologize if i came out as hostile ok

@Friendlyhistorian: No hostility intended, it is simply that this not the place to discuss the objections multiple editors have had to your edits at List of presidents of the United States. The content of the table on that page has changed over time and changes have been and are made by consensus reached among editors on the article's talk page. Please open a discussion there on your desired changes. Drdpw (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Drdpw. So I noticed that in this edit, you removed the TCR reference from the season effects section. I wanted to ask why you removed it? I thought we were suppose to add the TCR references down in that section? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WeatherWriter: The long-standing practice has been to only include references when specific fatality number and/or specific damage figures are included in the table for an individual system. Drdpw (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems a little counter-intuitive since that puts items in a table without a secondary reliable source. I think that practice may need to be re-evaluated since it doesn’t align perfectly with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’m not going to start a discussion on this issue, but I think it is something that should be said at least. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Drdpw!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for being a Wikipedian! StrawberryChi'sCake (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions on weather-related articles, really appreciate it! Tails Wx 02:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! FYI you've reverted the hatnote from Stormy Daniels to Storm Daniel 4 times (1, 2, 3, 4), and your edits are happening within a very short timeframe. The first 3 and last 3 reverts happened within 24 hours, and are therefore disfavored under the WP:3RR policy. I wonder if you'd be willing to self-revert and start a discussion on the talk page? Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you want the date column to be unsortable? I have never seen that in a sortable table and see no reason to remove the sorting. It's the initial sorting and the same sorting as the first column but readers may not realize that if they want to go back after sorting by another column. Based on your edit summary in [3] I wonder whether you realize it was sorted chronologically by the full date including year. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am planning to start to create a draft for tropical storm bret. The season article is already quite lengthy and I don't know how much media coverage there is. If it doesn't prove to work well, I will redirect it, but please dont redirect while I am still working on it. Shmego (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shmego: I would first explore how much additional material is out there and whether that additional material makes Bret noteworthy according to the project's specific notability guidelines. Drdpw (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. I might be a tad paranoid, but I'm beginning to think that the editors Batong 1930 & Tinpo 162 (name/number style) at the List of presidents of the United States & List of vice presidents of the United States pages, are the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that been involved with (Hurricane Ian) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Effects of Hurricane Ian in Florida). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've finished a draft for the timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season. Could you review it? ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]