User talk:DavidWBrooks

Hey! I saw you reversed my edit under the "Eeny Meeny Miny Moe" page due to my Wheel of Fortune example not being sourced correctly. I do have a source regarding it on the Wheel of Fortune archive list, if I source that would it be good enough to keep? I am new to editing Wikipedia so I might've not gotten the hang on all the rules yet....

Thanks in advance! Takora06 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try it and see what it's like. We don't know until you do it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire

Your Edit Summary is "I don't know why this is better but it just is". Well, it's better because "consisted of exclusively Democrats" has an adverb modifying a noun, and you moved the adverb to its usual position to modify the verb.

But I came in after you and scrubbed the whole thing, deleting the introductory sentence beginning, "There is a unique contrast". The sentence draws a conclusion (and hypes it) rather than just stating facts, which the following sentence did and does. It is probably not "unique" and, absent an explanation (such as out-of-state influence in federal races but not state ones), not newsworthy. That's not a criticism of your edit.

Now, the article notes this divergence in one other place. Also, I think the summary of individual election cycles does not make any point and is probably too detailed to be in the general article on the state. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit - no need to make uniqueness claims. - DavidWBrooks (talk) DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]