An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aura K. Dunn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mendham, New Jersey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please hash out your dispute on the discussion page Talk:Scott Taylor (politician) rather than in the edit summaries. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but if you read the discussion, he said for non-judicial appointees. There's the difference. Snickers2686 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you're reading what you want to read. He's saying use the same thing. Again, WP:EASTEREGG is plain. Again, you continuing to not address this with me or on the wikiproject specifically because you know other people will disagree is WP:CANVASSING. And fighting to maintain visibility on pages that you edit and want attention on is WP:OWN. Talk later. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I highly doubt the format is wrong since, as I've said, that's how it's been done for 2000+ federal judge articles with no issue. Snickers2686 (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is and just because you've specifically put it on 2000+ pages doesn't make it right. Whichever editor also uses every fucking unused useless infobox field, leaving thousands of bytes of messy code every time there's a new nominee, is also demonstrably wrong but they do it every time. It doesn't make it right. This is an asininely rich argument to make about judges because it's so anti-jurisprudential lol. "It's wrong a lot so it must be right!" ???? Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And given the comment you just made in the edit summary, that suggests to me you're not willing to have a discussion. So much for being WP:CIVIL. Snickers2686 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you make dozens of rvs after being told you're wrong and then continue to do so after "trying to discuss" and then continue to talk behind my back on another page, so I'm trying to get through the density of your skull. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Therequiembellishere: If all you're going to do is throw insults without having a discussion, then we're done here. Snickers2686 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm telling you that you're wrong and you pointedly keep ignoring it and then rving like you're still right, and then act shocked that it's fucking annoying. You're being obstinate, and I'm going to be upfront about it, and the dozens of times you have blatantly ignored being wrong is well past the point of you meekly waving the CIVIL flag. I can see why you "don't always get the warmest reception" at the wikiproject. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, don't tell someone they have a "limited knowledge" of anything - you don't know what people know (also comes off like you're some kind of big shot expert talking down to a commoner...not cool).

Second, I was going by what the official White House cabinet site has listed, which is the Office of Science and Technology Director spot.

I'd almost be inclined to think - after reading both the WH site and the Science Policy site - that both spots are in the cabinet.

Biden splitting the jobs has thrown a monkey wrench into things, but there are legit sources that would indicate they should both be in there.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Mower Rice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Flandrau.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I thought I should probably explain a bit more about why I've taken to use the circa note for death announcements that don't explicitly include a date. I'd say a good portion of the time, it does turn out to be the date the announcement was made, but certainly not always.

A recent example that sticks out in my mind, because the date of death turned out to be somewhat disputed, was for Richard Shepherd: the original death announcement was made, without a date, on February 21, 2022, so I placed c. February 21 in the article until his obituaries began giving a date of February 19 (the dispute happened when another source gave a death date of February 1 before being corrected to the 19th as a typo). So I don't even like to err on the side of making that assumption, and I just read/source death announcements at face value.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The granting of bachelor of science degrees to graduates of West Point began in 1933. Douglas MacArthur graduated in 1903. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work on improving Dean of the United States Senate! Mycranthebigman (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your recent edits updating pages after the Laurel Lee resignation. I see that you've added the Florida Secretary of State in the statewide political officials infobox. SOS is one of 20 appointed state agency heads, and the position is not even mentioned in the state constitution. I think adding SOS as the sole appointed executive official the infobox merits further discussion. Starrfruit (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Therequiembellishere! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 00:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Therequiembellishere. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I want to find some common ground on the Chesa Boudin infocard. So what’s your reason really on editing it to that way. I know you said on the edit it’s because we can use the original article, however before if you clicked “Recalled”, it would take you to the article on the recall and just explained the TBD with a note. No hate, just to see common ground. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop removing valid information. The term second lady is absolutely not made up or an invention of Wikipedia editors. Stop. cookie monster 755 06:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not some made up term. See here. Even the California legislature referred to Jennifer Siebel Newsom as the state's second lady when her husband was the lieutenant governor here. cookie monster 755 06:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't remove image captions, as you did at Fred Rogers. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan Hatch Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barre, Vermont.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Geoff Young! very helpful indeed! 46.138.132.150 (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! It's clearly no accident on your part after multiple editors have asked for you to implement them more often, and I don't know why you continue to disregard such requests, but please stop this bad habit of yours and start using more edit summaries. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you remove Richard Blumenthal and Joe Lieberman from Category:United States senators from Connecticut? This was not discussed anywhere, and we have WP:CFD for a reason. You also didn't use an edit summary as SNUGGUMS suggested above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to confirm with you - as a person who studies state government machinery professionally - that Wisconsin's constitution requires the superintendent of public instruction be elected in the manner identical to judges, i.e., by way of a nonpartisan spring election. Wisconsin has elected judges through nonpartisan spring elections since its territorial days, and those practices remain enshrined in its 1848 constitution. The superintendent of public instruction was originally elected on a partisan ballot during the fall election like the other constitutional officers. However, a constitutional amendment was passed in 1902 than switched over to the judicial election methodology (see The Wisconsin Blue Book 1940, pg. 247). What follows are the relevant constitutional provisions:

Article X, Section 1 states, inter alia, "The state superintendent shall be chosen by the qualified electors of the state at the same time and in the same manner as members of the supreme court, and shall hold office for 4 years from the succeeding first Monday in July."

Article VII, Section 4, Subsection (1) also states, inter alia, "Justices shall be elected for 10-year terms of office commencing with the August 1 next succeeding the election."

Finally, Article VII, Section 9 includes the following language, inter alia, "There shall be no election for a justice or judge at the partisan general election for state or county officers, nor within 30 days either before or after such election." Mcvayn (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, I know what a nonpartisan election is. It doesn't mean the person doesn't belong to a political party. Underly is still a Democrat. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She may be more progressive-leaning on certain issues, but that in and of itself does not necessarily make Dr. Underly a Democrat. By that logic, a regular voter can be pigeonholed into a single ideology simply by reason of sharing one position with a political party. This fallacy doesn't bear out in reality. For example, the Pierce county auditor in Washington is running for secretary of state this election cycle as a nonpartisan candidate. She endorsed the last elected secretary of state, a Republican, before she resigned to work in the federal government. And yet in the same breath, the candidate happens to be more progressive on post-incarceration voting rights than the Democratic incumbent appointed by Governor Jay Inslee. Does this make her a Republican? A Democrat? A genuine nonpartisan? This is why I believe pigeonholing any nonpartisan candidate into the ideology of a party is inherently problematic. Humans are complex organisms with political views derived from an interplay of both upbringing and lived experiences, which in turn is reinforced by sociocultural exposure. When people run as nonpartisans for partisan offices, or like Dr. Underly run for constitutionally nonpartisan offices, we should have the grace to acknowledge that their personal ideological leanings may not neatly overlay those of a political party.

Also, Wisconsin's courts have interpreted the constitutional provisions regarding judges and the state superintendent over the many decades to mean that an individual cannot run for either office and formally belong to a political party. If you visit the Wisconsin Democratic or Republican party websites, you will see that neither party lists Underly as a member for that reason. For some historical reference on this phenomenon, I encourage you to read the obituary of Dr. Eleazer Root, Wisconsin's first state superintendent of public instruction at the State Historical Society, plus Jacksonian Democracy and the Wisconsin Constitution. Dr. Root literally wrote article X of the state constitution and was one of the few members of the constitutional convention that was neither a Republican nor a Democrat. The latter source material discusses the various influences of Jacksonian democracy in Wisconsin, including the nonpartisan nature of Wisconsin's local governments, judiciary, and state superintendent's office. You will need to inquire with the Marquette Law Review for a copy of Jacksonian Democracy and the Wisconsin Constitution.

Death of Eleazer Root, D.D. - https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Newspaper/BA2945

Jacksonian Democracy and the Wisconsin Constitution - https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol62/iss4/2/ Mcvayn (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I don't want to start another editing war, but can you please explain why we shouldn't link the Acting or President pro tempore? It is common practice to do both. The Incumbent tag is already link always, so why wouldn't we link the acting? Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OVERLINK. It's not common practice beyond LA, and if it is anywhere else then it's incorrect there too. "Incumbent" is linked because that's in the coding of the template but it probably shouldn't be either. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Therequiembellishere: Hey so we kinda got it figured out on the talk page or O'Farrell. But I wanted to ask about the Assistant President pro tempore infobox card. I get that the infobox shouldn't be a resume (because trust me long infoboxes are annoying) but the fact that she doesn't hold any office now, and the fact that all the other Assistant President pro tempore's have theirs on, and the fact that it would only be 5 offices on her box kinda makes me think about putting it on. But I would like to hear your side of your opinion? :) Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop deleting political offices from the infobox at your whim without first discussing it on the talk page as you did for Ellen Weaver. It's hardly insignificant. See SC Acts A282, R330, H4662. Thanks.Dr. Blazer (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. It's still a civilian appointment to a state legislative oversight committee. Which, sorry, is not significant enough for an infobox. The role itself has to be notable, not just the person holding it. And it's not. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm seems like a lot of users have been bothered by your edits as well. Now I don't want to escalate this for your sake, but it has been agreed upon by multiple users that the 3 "acting presidents" should be removed since nowhere in the constitution says that the prime minister becomes an acting head of state. The constitution even specifically states that the office should be vacant. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like you and a single other (not "a lot") extremely new accounts don't know how to use a reliable source and not their own original research. If you can manage that, fine. If you can't, you're out of line. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems that you don’t check references well. In the article President of Lebanon, the Lebanese constitution is in the references which specifically states that the “presidency” is vacant and only some of the presidential powers are delegated to the council of ministers, and not the prime minister. That is notwithstanding the fact that many (and yes not just the extremely new account you’re referencing) Lebanese accounts agree, substantiated by the appropriate references. E3f4b5 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve added a heavily referenced paragraph titled “Vacancy” in the article “President of Lebanon” that settles this debate once and for all. E3f4b5 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The OP made zero effort to make a reference and just kept reverting, so seems like there weren't any references to check. Glad you all figured out how this works. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have the article on Anna Fisher up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Lee Fisher/archive1. If you could drop by with some comments, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you changed Arizona Attorney General to Attorney General of Arizona with the explanation How people talk.

I understand your point: we often colloquially refer to attorneys general as "Attorney General of...", but in Arizona, like just about every state as far as I can tell, the name of the office is Arizona Attorney General. See the official website as well as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

I simply pulled these out of the News section of a search for "Arizona Attorney General"; a similar search for "Attorney General of Arizona" just shows sources using "Arizona Attorney General". Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you have not replied in nearly 48 hours while being active, I have reverted your edit. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Therequiembellishere,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States House of Representatives committees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Williams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's about consistency across pages. MN State House districts are subject to redistricting and that can, but doesn't always change the number of a member's district. This leads to confusion on many past member pages with succeeding members and districts. I believe it is better to have consistency and clarity which should trump the tiny amount of duplication Minnesotan38 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! My recent edit on this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1148328312?diffmode=source is in line with how other Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices have their infoboxes formatted, I believe you may have confused my edit for the one by the user who keeps “restoring infoboxes.” You have made edits reverting this user, as have I, so I believe that is where the confusion lies Barbarbarty (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B. Chance Saltzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Wright.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the revert at Template:Hawaii statewide political officials--I was editing on mobile and got confused between the red highlights and green highlights in the diff. Your edit was 100% correct and it was a bad revert on my part. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! Lots flying around these days. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listen if it bothers you that title has 5+ people yes i understand that maybe we should remove it or make it collapsible I get that but the Senior Advisor article has a list of people who have served so i think its important that this is shown in the infobox all other white house positions work this way also pls dont revert lets discuss it here Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference being that all other WH positions are actual jobs and not a sinecure title. It is not the purpose of the infobox to be a resume, and we can/should/do adequately link and source in the article prose where appropriate. This is one of those outside the beltway confusions that bedevil wikipedia so often, much like the broader titles of SAP, DAP and ATP simply indicate rank. And yet people will try to add an infobox section saying "Assistant to the President" like that's a job in an of itself when that simply isn't true. The same holds for Senior Advisor and Counselor (traditionally the even more senior sinecure title), and to try and indicate some sort of linearity of succession as well as "alongside" a bevy of other people who work in entirely separate areas is just wrong and not encyclopedic. We should list actually positions that do follow those infobox usages when they are notable and usually only principal roles. Senior advisors are simply being misinterpreted and don't meet the criteria. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listen i get that but they are getting that title for reason right they must be doing something otherwise why do they have it . If i remember correctly President pro tempore emeritus is also just a title but its still in the infobox Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok hear me out i have an idea i do think we should remove the serving with other its kinda dumb and should do what the Podesta article does he is Senior Advisor to the President for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation Neera is Senior Advisor for Health care Policy and United States Digital Service i do feel you though there is a big lack of standardization in wikipedia i mostly work on lists and electoral results so I get were you are coming from Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway what do you think ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Lisa Wang (lawyer). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jennifer Gutiérrez (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you did a lot of work on this article in July, and I'm hoping the subject is still fresh enough for you. There is a very clumsy sentence, that's been clumsy for a couple of years at least.

Currently it reads:

The postmaster general is now appointed by the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Previously it read:

The postmaster general is now appointed by nine "governors", appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The "appointed... appointed..." leads to confusion and rereading and continued confusion. It really looks like someone didn't clean up completely when changing from "(PMG) appointed by the president" to "(PMG) appointed by Board of Gov...". Even adding the words "which is" before the second 'appointed' would help only a little.

I'm thinking it would be better overall not to attempt to succinctly repeat here how the Board gets formed. Rather, with the nice link available to satisfy all curiosity, just have:

The postmaster general is now appointed by the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service.

Seem reasonable? Shenme (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, the USPS board has its own article. Revised. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I noticed that you marked my edit on Kevin McCarthy's infobox as overkill. Pro tempore is a Latin term, and standard English conventions require any word used in a different language, regardless of use (in most cases), be italicized. Can you explain why that would be overkill?

Thank you! WezouskyMike (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. Your input is welcomed at this discussion, concerning bios of lame-duck politicians. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so we're clear, what this is about is that you do not seem to be respecting the consensus established at this RFC, which you particpated in heavily and can therefore be presumed to be aware of the result. We don't always have to agree with a consensus, but it is expected that ediors respect a consensus unless and until they have some reason to believe that consensus on the subject has changed. As others have already said in the new discussion, this looks less like a policy problem and more like an issue with your behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 9 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Therequiembellishere: If there is a Wikipedia rule, or precedent for removing the 'birth name as middle name convention’ from LaDoris "Hazzard" Cordell's info-box, please let me know. If not, I respectfully request you repair any other 'birth names' you have removed. In the meantime, my restoration of "Hazzard" is consistent with Ketanji “Brown” Jackson, Amy “Coney” Barrett, and the late Sandra “Day” O’Connor, to name but a few noteworthy judges. Thank you. SPS888 (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Therequiembellishere: What Wikipedia rule did you follow to remove the "Occupations" from LaDoris Hazzard Cordell's info box? For example, Fred Rogers has multiple occupations in his info box: "Children's television • presenter • actor • puppeteer • singer • composer • television • producer • author • educator • Presbyterian minister." Without your informed reply, I shall restore what was taken. Thank you. SPS888 (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While you're right that AP/DAP/SAP are ranks and typically not used alone as titles, that's what the White House [7] used for Fleming. Every other DCOS listed in official records was explicitly given that title, in addition to the AP rank. Whether or not Fleming felt that he essentially performed that function, other people were explicitly given the title and Fleming was not, and that's the biographical standard. The article reflects what he felt his duties were and his proximity to the COS office. Constantsusan (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Furthermore, your recent Bold edit to Jonny Kim was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't continue to edit war by reinstating the edit. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]