User talk:Foofighter20x/Archive 2

U.S. congressional apportionment
You are welcome. I used the apportionnment tables of Election Data Services to update these projections. I hope that it will help you. I would like to contribuate much to these article but I don't speak neither understand english very well. I don't often contribuate to english wikipedia but I use it a lot to find data about U.S. politics. Antonio V (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

VEEP powers
There's not any one source I can think of off hand. You might try vicepresident.whitehouse.gov. It may have a section on the history of the office. Cornell's US Code database could be searched for the NSC authorizing statute. I'd also check opencrs.com to see if they post any CRS reports on the powers of the Vice President. Good luck.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The profession
If you really are a law student, I hope you don't intend to talk to lawyers and clients with the tone you used in your response at Talk:President pro tempore of the United States Senate. Trying to impress people with your education (especially something as tenuous as "studied to be a constitutional scholar), impugning the motives of those who disagree with you (for instance accusing others of dishonesty), and generally being condescending are just some of the traits state supreme courts are talking about when they call for an end to incivility. Our generation of lawyers has a responsibility to stop the cycle of incivility because if we don't, no one will. I'm sorry if this is overly preachy, but incivility drives good lawyers out of the profession and contributes to our already tarnished image. Endeavoring to be civil, regardless of whether the situation arises in a legal context or whether others know you are a part of the profession is important. I'm not taking this personally, and I wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't mentioned being a law student. I hope you don't take this personally, but rather take it as food for thought. -Rrius (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Electoral College
Thanks for the kind words on my edit to Electoral College (United States). I'm no Bush fan, but that sort of sniping diminishes the encyclopedia.

Thanks also for setting up the archive on my talk page. I'd been thinking of looking into how to do that. Was there some tool you used, or was that manual? TJRC (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was manual. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937
I just noticed that you tried to nominate the above article for consideration as a featured article at Featured article candidates/Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. No one has yet responded there, because you didn't quite complete the nomination process—you didn't add your FAC page to the list at Featured article candidates. Since you created the FAC nomination over a week ago, rather than just add it myself, I wanted to make sure you still want to go ahead with the nomination. If so, please add to the top of the list at WP:FAC (you might want to update the date of your signature on your FAC page as well). Alternatively, if you're not ready to proceed with the nomination at this time, you can tag your FAC page with db-author to clear it for next time. Thanks, and good luck! Maralia (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a really nice article, you should put it into Good article nominations. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts
Reverts of non-vandalism are not minor edits. See, Help:Minor edit. Marking them as such is deceptive, whether you intend them to be or not. Some people do not see minor edits in their watchlists, and others generally skip over them. -Rrius (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

William Cushing
Per your request, I tried doing the template. This added to the work -- a lot. i Am unfamiliar with using them. Please format this so it's right. This could then be transplanted (wholesale, more or less) into virtually all the Supreme Court justice articles. Happy editing. Best regards 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * I tweaked the templates down to their bare bones. Go have a look to how they are regularly used. Foofighter20x (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. I only wish you'd been a wee bit earlier, as I put this in to a few articles along the way.  Best.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * Not a prob. If you are worried about the other articles, go ahead and copy what I did with them and put those on the other pages. Also, one thin I noticed: only use the ISBN for the book you are referencing. In some you listed two or more. I stuck with the first one given, but with the 2d and 3d editions you cited, I may have given the wrong one. You may want to correct me on that. :) Foofighter20x (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

i already did that. Going back through the other articles is a slog. I'm done for today. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Stan

Chris Cunningham
He is delating the Seal and Flag off of the prez navbox and others' that I have created! Bluedogtn (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Findlaw requiring login
Is this still happening for you? It happens occasionally for me, but I dislike Justia's layout and prefer Findlaw.--chaser (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand your preference. Yet, I arrived at Justia for reasons other than the occassionally log-in requirement it loads instead of the case for which one is searching. Wikipedia in general likes to avoid referencing commerical/proprietary sites in order to avoid any appearance of endorsement. FindLaw is purely that and has the advertisements on page also; Justia is jointly-operated with a non-profit (Oyez.org) and has ZERO ads. Thus, questions of personal preferences are of no weight, for me, in any discussion over whether to return the aim of the template's code back as FindLaw. I picked Justia since they aren't enriched by linking to them and doesn't give the appearance of endorsement to the site as a commercial venture, or to its advertisers, which in total fits with the style of Wikipedia. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are still getting the logon request instead of the case?--chaser (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, totally forgot to answer that. Sporadically, yes, I still get the log-in request. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Hello, Foofighter20x. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

POTUS
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with the eligibility thing. Saying that an eligible person can only be elected twice is unnecessarily redundant since only eligible people can be elected at all. Redundancy is itself something to be avoided, but the particular use in that paragraph makes it more cumbersome and less readable without adding the slightest bit of meaning. So, if there is something you are trying to get across, let me know, and maybe we can figure out together how to address it. -Rrius (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the logic of the terminology that I'm trying to get correct. Constitutionally, there is a difference between persons and citizens. There's even a Constitutional difference between citizens when compared against natural-born citizens. "If Sam is a citizen, then Sam is a person." Obviously. It doesn't work the other way around, though. If Sam is a person, that doesn't necessarily mean Sam is a citizen. And if Sam is a citizen, it doesn't necessarily mean Sam is a natural-born citizen. The article continually said "any person", "any one", etc. I'm trying to narrow the scope of applicability by referring to eligible persons so the article is accurate. Am I explaining what I'm trying to say well? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there is a difference between "person" and "citizen" in the Constitution. The terms at issue, however, are not naked uses of "person". They are already qualified by "who has twice been elected President". That makes "citizen" superfluous because a person who has twice been elected President is by definition not just a citizen, but a natural-born one. The Amendment itself says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President..." I don't see the reason for muddying up the prose here. There is no way to read the text as it existed before your edit to mean that the 22nd Amendment somehow provides a way around the other requirements for election. If your only concern is the one you've stated above, it may be well-founded for other bits of Wikipedia that discuss the Constitution, but it is not implicated with this one. -Rrius (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :D -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you know of some places that do need some conversion from "citizen" to "person" or vice versa, let me know where I can help. -Rrius (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Stanley Forman Reed.jpg
File:Stanley Forman Reed.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Stanley Forman Reed.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential line of succession
Hi. Your recent corrections to the various succession boxes brought them in line with the SBS guidelines, but reintroduced the issue I was IARing to address. The presidential line of succession is a real, legal and meaningful sequence of individuals who would take over the office of the POTUS in the event of one or more deaths or incapacitations. The order or precedence is symbolic and has no legal or practical importance; it is advice to function planners that can be superceded by any practical need. Having them together at the bottom of the list of SBs confuses the reader and violates the SB guideline principle that the most powerful position is listed above less powerful positions. I guess the best way to resolve this is to make the separate us-pres SB with a higher place in the guidelines, but I thought I'd see if you had any other thoughts. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Response:
 * All the pages on which the US-Pres-Prec appears at the bottom are the bio pages of the office holders. Seems that it's actually the best place for it as the precedent box won't be there permanently and the permanently included succession boxes are akin to the bio subject's "political resume."
 * I put the US-Pres-Prec under the protocol precedence as the latter is always implemented, whereas the US-Pres-Prec is only contingent upon the death, resignation, removal, or disability of the President; that is, a reader is more likely to encounter the latter in use than the former.


 * You'll probably need to continue fighting for the change or an importance distinction on the SBS talk page. Until consensus is built there, I think we ought to stick with what we got. I won't disagree if you can get enough people to agree to the change... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the details of your reasoning. I had already accepted what you did as reasonable based on standardization, but it is always good to hear how other people view things. I had never heard the "political resume" reasoning before this and I can see how that makes more sense of the whole US political SB thing. I think the "usefulness to the reader" argument is a little weak, though. I wouldn't expect a party planner to follow the links from SB to SB to plan the seating at a luncheon; they would simply use the list in the order of precedence article. How the government deals with unexpected vacancies at the top of the administrative branch, though, is a more generally interesting topic, IMO. But you know what they say about reasonable people. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for review
I've recently created my first Wikipedia page. It's a list of the U.S./Soviet summit meetings held from 1943 to 1991. I would like some feedback. It can be found on my user page until I've run it past a few people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mtminchi08/List_of_United_States_Soviet_Union_summits

If there's anyone else you can recommend who can review this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mtminchi08 (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed criticism section of POTUS
Wondering about your thinking about the proposed criticism suggestion of POTUS:

Talk:President of the United States/sandbox

Any thoughts or suggestions? Plus you never told me your favorite Foofighter song. Mine's Everlong. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your favorite Foofighter song
You never told me. Mine's "Everlong". And, I can play it on the guitar but it doesn't sound as good as Foofighters version (but it's not too bad). What's weird is -- I like both electric and acoustic versions of this song, although I lean towards the electric version, which I don't get tired of.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * TCATS is still my favorite album of theirs, but I think EL has become a little overplayed. I have to say that I think m fave song of theirs is Hey, Johnny Park. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx. I'll look for it, but I don't buy CDs any more. Not sure what TCATS is but I'll look for it. Oh, The Color and the Shape. Will check out Hey, Johnny Park. Agree about EL being overplayed but I don't get tired of it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship article
I noticed the list of articles about citizenship which you included. I'm also exploring this topic, but more from the point of view of US citizenship-in-general, and I'll probably be adding sections to the newly created "US citizenship" article about the "history of citizenship", and I'll be trying to see the big picture. And what I find will probably include both birthright and naturalized citizenship. My sense is "birthright" citizenship is over-emphasized (and this is reflected in part by having a whole article about it) whereas citizenship as a relation between individual and state is under-emphasized. I think there are strong cultural and political explanations for this, and I think it's wrapped up with the general problem of America. So, in the US, citizenship is a kind of legal status with fewer and fewer political dimensions -- citizens don't vote, participate politically, follow the news, know their congressperson or their congresspersons issues, attend town meetings, don't serve on juries much any more, don't have a commitment to serve in the US military if summoned (today there's a volunteer, paid army). But the legal aspects are positive (widening of citizenship, more people counted as "citizens", greater freedom and power to do things because of the commercial economy, less discrimination). So there are pluses and minuses.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)