User talk:JasonCNJ

Thanks, for clarification
Hello, JasonCNJ. I just wanted to thank you, for your edits on Acting President of the United States & particularly Presidential Succession Act. Until these last few days, I had mistakenly thought that all official in the Presidential Succession, would become President (not just Acting President) if the President & VP had died/resigned/removed from office at the same time. I now know, Carl Albert was correct when saying he'd be Acting President (in a Presidential/Vice Presidential vacancy). Thanks for fixing up the articles. GoodDay 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD notice
Thanks for the heads up about the columbia university mock trial article! I went ahead and puyt my two cents in. Thanks again and kepe up the good work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Acting Vice President
Thanks for nominating this article for deletion. GoodDay 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree ... but there's some interesting new information that's come up during the deletion discussion ... you might want to pop over there and have a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

order of precedence
Hi Jason - I saw you reinstated the order of precedence box on Ted Stevens' page. It's apparent that you know a lot about the subject,  so of course you know what "order of precedence" actually means - ceremonial protocol only. But the problem is that by using the words "preceded by" and "succeeded by" there is an implication that it is describing succession, as in succession to the presidency in the event of a catastrophe, not precedence which means who sits where at an official dinner, etc. I don't think it's immediately apparent at all to readers less-informed than yourself that this is strictly a matter of symbolic protocol - only by reading  the page for order of precedence does that become clear, and there's no reason to assume that people will click on that link to find out. So as it is now, it would seem best to not have a potentially confusing box on individual Senators' pages. This is being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, fyi. If you really think order of precedence is important for senators' articles, then why not work it into the text - maybe in a miscellany-type section. But I and others think this box, as it is, is misleading to the average reader, especially in the US where "succession" is pretty well understood, but "precedence" is not really. Glad to talk about it, of course. Tvoz | talk 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NJ Thanks You
I've come across several of your edits during my review of New Jersey pages; specifically, I saw your comments preventing vandalism on the Jon Corzine page and your corrections to EricL on the List of New Jersey Governors page. Just wanted to stop by and say "Thanks" for all the work you've done. Several NJ articles are accurate because of your contributions. JasonCNJ 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, even if you're not authorized to speak on behalf of the entire state. I've realized that taking the time to explain an issue, every now an then, can go a long way to helping make Wikipedia better for everyone involved. Alansohn 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted Stevens internet stuff
In actual fact, I agree with you: that info, as well as info on other critcism of Stevens, belongs in the main article. A few weeks back, someone took it upon himself to remove all criticism to a separate article, which I and another editor are in disagreement about. Perhaps you might like to weigh in at Talk:Ted Stevens. Regards. --Yksin 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Caggiano
Hi JasonCNJ, at your young age it is apparent while you live across the river from NJ, you don't know how corrupt this State is.

If you had read my web page, thomascaggiano.com, you would find out I am now working with the Deputy Director of the Attorney General of the United States of America only two positions from the President of the United States of America, with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, the DOJ's Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section and the FBI Director. What is on the web page includes letters from our Federal Senator, Congressman, State Senate Leader, our District's State's Senator, Assemblyman, Assemblywoman, Stanhope Environmental Commission, prior Land Use Board, seventeen propert owners and the smoking guns of massive corruptin. The web is being used by hundreds of people and we have have other Judges indicted, and had the FBI supervisor removed, the Chief of the Special Prosecution Branch for the Department of Criminal Justice and the independent Govt Record Council has ordered the Office of the Attorney General to appear before it as it has more then a thousand pages of evidence. Read and listen to the audio files on the web site as it will be getting many more sound tracks and transcripts. In fact there is muntiny going on in Trenton as the Assignment officers are willfully disobeying orders from corrupt Cabinet level officials. I and others have already testified in court for 4.5 hours. So stay tuned to thomascaggiano.com and find out reality as dozens upon dozens of individuals are under massive criminal investigations.

Go ahead and report that I am entering the truth.... If it were untrue I would be sued for libel. So much for your understanding of publication rights guaranteed me by the New Jersey Constitution. Read it. The Associated Press, Star Ledger, Daily Record and other newspapers use my web page as a source as we already shut down the Government Record Council in Jun 2006 and had laws changed. Rather then complain, we are getting rid of hundreds of corrupt officials and changing laws too to benefit the citizens in our grass roots cause...

Tom Caggiano


 * I don't quite know where to begin, Tom. First, please place your comments on my talk page under an appropriate header. Do not place them at the top of the talk page. Thanks. Second, I have worked and do work in New Jersey politics, I have lived through the great term of Governor Florio, lived through the horror of Governor Whitman, stayed up all night in 1997 for then Mayor McGreevey's near-win, watched McGreevey rise, watched Sharpe James suffer his closest challenge, watched McGreevey fall, lived through the Acting Governorships of two Senate Presidents, and helped to elect our current Governor. While I may be young, I am quite aware of the state of corruption in New Jersey politics...from what I remember and from the history I have learned. I need no lessons in the state of corruption in New Jersey...and, in any event, tomcaggiano.com is not reputable enough to teach me much of anything.


 * My only interaction with you was to remove an unsourced, outrageous claim on the page of Chief Justice Stuart Rabner to wit:
 * ...Stuart Rabner will be desposed and subpoenaed to the municipal court and forced to testify under oath; thereafter criminal charges will be filed against Sturat Rabner in Mercer County's Criminal Court on South Broad St, Trenton, for criminal conduct while he was the New Jersey Attorney General.
 * Your source for that material was...yourself. However, Wikipedia policy clearly prohibits your edit as it constituted original research. Additionally Wikipedia policy on bios of living persons requires that "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." Your edit was clearly "unsourced or poorly sourced" about a "living person" and policy required that I remove it immediately. I did so.


 * I don't know who the "Deputy Director of the Attorney General of the United States" is. I assume, from the DOJ Organizational Chart, you mean the "Deputy Attorney General" of the United States. I find it incredibly hard to believe that you are working directly with the DAG but I have no way of knowing for sure. Anyway, I have no opinion on your dispute with Stanhope and I really do not care about your rantings on corruption. My point is that you cannot add outrageous material to the Wikipedia biography of the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court without submitting proper sources that can be verified. If you attempt to do so, I will revert you.


 * Personally, I do not think the Chief Justice will be summonded to a municipal court, forced to testify, and then criminally charged in Mercer County Superior Court. Personally, without knowing the details of your Stanhope situation, I think that idea is absurd and that you are crazy for submitting those facts as true. Here's a man who has been involved in two confirmation hearings in less than a year, the former head of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey, who was supported in his rise by the U.S. Attorney himself and the Governor.....I suppose in the realm of possibility he could be "corrupt" during his brief and exhalted tenure as NJAG but I doubt it. Regardless, if you feel those things did happen/are going to happen, then get a reputable reporter to write about them in a news story and post a neutral story and link to that report. Do not use your website as a "source" for your own original research that strains the limits of reason.


 * JasonCNJ 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Inherent contempt
Jason:

You added to the Statutory Proceedings section of the inherent contempt page the following: "the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker--e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt--says it is; the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only--and is obligated to--execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation;"

With all due respect, The reason I deleted this post from the section is because it is not neutral.

You are drawing specific conclusions from a subjective interpretation of the Constitution where no such conclusions exist.. In fact, these points are under considerable debate at this time and it is likely they can only be resolved by the courts. To say that the "Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law ..." or "any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation" is simply not true. Each branch of government is tasked with interpreting the law on some level and has since the Nation's inception. That is one reason why the "separation of powers" is not static but in always in flux.

You'll notice that my original posting drew no such conclusions and merely presented the major points of contention between the Executive Branch's "unitary executive" interpretation and those that support a more common interpretation without making any determination as to the legality of either position as your definition has.

If you can revise the section and still maintain the "neutrality" wikipedia requires, please feel free to do so.

Hope this helps to clarify things.

Bowa

Contempt of Congress and Criticism of George W. Bush
I think your edits to Contempt of Congress as of 07:07, 29 July 2007 would make an excellent addition to Criticism of George W. Bush, if you can also provide a source for the statements. -- Dr.enh 06:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First Dispute, 31 July
You did violate 3RR, but I won't report you. Lets discuss this on the talk page of the article. I don't know why you want to have a dispute on this, the picture should be removed, its not on any of the other offices. You seem to be the one with a dispute, your hero is already pictured in the article so what's the point of having really?--User:Southern TexasUser talk:Southern Texas 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your edits, remember that I still can report you. You have no agrument. Give me one good reason why this page should be any different from any of the other officeholder pages. When 24 hours is up, I will remove the picture again. It does not belong and clutters up the page--User:Southern TexasUser talk:Southern Texas 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I still have one revert left, you don't, so everything I said above will go into effect if you revert me again.--User:Southern TexasUser talk:Southern Texas 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I have removed the coloring from your signature since I find it annoying but wikipedia policy prevents me from commenting further on the comment you struck out above. {Comment by JasonCNJ on 31 July 2007}
 * I am sorry about the way I went about this, I probably could have been more WP:CIVIL about it. I will respect the consensus on the talk page regardless of the outcome. P.S. why is my signature so annoying I just changed it and I like how it stands out.--User talk:Southern Texas 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Dispute, 7 August
I posted the following comment on his talk page:

''Violation of 3RR

''Southern Texas,

''We have had our disputes about the Speaker's page and we engaged in an edit war a few days ago. I mentioned to you then that you should watch 3RR. And you even noticed on the talk page your obligations under 3RR on 31 July 2007. Today, you violated Wikipedia's Three revert rule on Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. To wit:

''You reverted User:JCO312 at 16:21, 6 August 2007 Revert #1;

''and then a second time at 17:19, 6 August 2007 Revert #2;

''and then a third time at 17:31, 6 August 2007 Revert #3;

''and finally you reverted me (your fourth revert to the page within 24 hours) at 18:30, 6 August 2007 Revert #4.

''If you do not revert your own most-recent revert, I will report your activities on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

JasonCNJ 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In response, SouthernTexas posted:


 * I will not remove it because you were obviously setting me up for it. We were undergoing discussion and a compromise on the talk page. What you did could be considered trolling. There is still more to do, like replacing the Henry Clay image which I will do, but I will not put up a third picture of Pelosi as well as the same image twice.--User:Southern Texas00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To which I submitted: Once again, I have removed the coloring from your signature line since I find it annoying. I will respond in substance on your talk page. JasonCNJ 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SouthernTexas undid my response on his page, writing in the edit summary "removing unconstructive bickering." For clarity, my response was:


 * If you have evidence of "trolling" or me breaking wikipedia policy, please let me know. I had evidence of you doing so and I went directly to you to give you one final chance to fix it yourself to avoid the need for an administrative report. I will now make that report that you have violated 3RR.


 * JasonCNJ 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SouthernTexas then undid my comment on his talk page, writing in the edit summary: "obvious wikistalking)"

I just wanted to put all these comments in one place, since he claims to have "retired" and deleted his the contents of his talk page. JasonCNJ 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that SouthernTexas edited one of his earlier comments to strike out a sentence. The stricken out sentence is: What you did could be considered trolling . His original text appears above; the stricken out text is noted in this thread just to keep time/date accurate. JasonCNJ 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

a fellow Troll!!!
So you must be the person JCO312 told me about!!! Trolls 'R' Us Balloonman 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I suppose my cover has been blown. I consider myself of the devious, more human-like folk but even I proved to be no match for the investigatory talents of SouthernTexas. Trolls Unite! JasonCNJ 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaker of the House of Representatives
Just thought I'd let you know that I suggested the list be split into its own article and your opinions would help at Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Thank you.-- Southern Texas  17:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Www.kucinich.us
FYI, I replaced a Criteria for speedy deletion (A7) template--that had been removed by the author--on this article. Frankly I would have put the template on myself if it hadn't already been there, as I don't think associating a site with a public figure is the same as claiming it's notable. --Evil1987 14:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, thanks for the note. I've sent the article to AfD: Articles for deletion/Www.kucinich.us. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I've speedily deleted it under CSD G4. I'll have a word with the creator. Thanks again! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. www.kucinich.us was already protected so that it can't be recreated and now kucinich.us can't be created (assuming I did it right anyway). Thanks for keeping an eye on this, much appreciated. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jon Corzine
Why did you delete the Controversy section? The great govenor of New Jersey has had more than his fair share of controversy and it is not reflected on the page. Please do not delete factual information that he himself confirms. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYcThUgg (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discharge petitions and discharge resolutions.
This is in response to this edit. First off, the earlier edit definitely improved the article and tightened the style and accuracy (I meant absolute majority, but wrote simple majority not remembering that they aren't the same). However, as for that edit... the problem is that discharge resolution currently redirects to discharge petition. So now, rather than having a clarifying comment, someone looking up discharge resolution would get the impression that it's an alternate term for a discharge petition. This is clearly misleading. So... either the clarification in the discharge petition article should be restored, or an article should be written for discharge resolution, or it should redirect somewhere else and have a section explaining it there. Do you think that there's enough information on discharge resolutions to merit an article? My intuition is no, but you seem to more familiar with that topic than I am. (Speaking of which, any information you have on the discharge petition's early use in the first half of the 20th century would be appreciated. When I researched the issue, I couldn't find much information on that.) SnowFire 04:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a one-sentence italicized notice at the top of the article explaining that the article in question is about a procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives and distinguished from a similarly named procedure in the U.S. Senate. But I do not think there's enough information for an article on "discharge resolutions" in the Senate -- so I think the redirect should be deleted. If there is an article on Procedures of the U.S. Senate, however, a "discharge resolution" mention could be placed there.
 * Regarding your second question, I know more details about the rein of Speaker Cannon and how discharge petitions came from his excesses, but I don't know much more about its actual use. Let me know what ya find out - I'd be happy to read about it! If you think I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to write. JasonCNJ 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I might be able to help with this, as I have a couple of books on Congressional procedure around here somewhere; I'll try to take a look during the week. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Neat. The stuff I read was mostly academic analysis of later discharge petition use, and it basically only said "the discharge petition was different before and basically not comparable, so we're ignoring it."


 * As for discharge resolution... an article like Procedures and terminology of the United States Congress would actually probably be a good idea (akin to Glossary of American football), but I don't think it exists yet.  The closest is Category:Terminology of the United States Congress, I suppose.  That wouldn't be a bad spot to contain information on discharge resolutions when it exists, I suppose. SnowFire 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Article I
JasonCNJ, I've taken two semesters of Constitutional Law, and what 35.10.248.238 says on the article about Article I is not even controversial to legal experts. It might be over your head, yet that does not negate the legitimacy of his edits, or the accurate representation of current standard constitutional interpretation which he presents. Have you read any Chemerinsky? I'd recommend him. Judge373 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl Albert
Hello Jason, would you check the Albert page's 'Mr Speaker' section? A part of it says Albert could've become President & part of it says Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really that important, but... (Chief Justice of the United States)
It's not really that important, but there is a difference between what something is and what something is called; for an amusing explanation, read the chapter on the White Knight in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. The Chief Justice is sometimes/often called "The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court", and indeed this is not the official title. But an informal appellation is not "mistaken" if it is recognized as informal. The President is often informally called "Mr. President" and the position called "the Presidency", even though the official title is "President of the United States" and the position is "the Presidency of the United States"; that does not mean that "Mr. President" or "the President" is a "mistaken title". What would be mistaken would be to believe that the informal appellation is in fact the official title. The paragraph in question makes it clear that the common informal appellation is not the official name of the position. That's why I said there was no need to "pile it on". Basically, it is an instance of Use-mention distinction, the difference between what the song is called and what the title of the song is. But I certainly don't think this is important enough to warrant a big argument. Just thought I would point out my reasoning. Magidin (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to the US HoR article
It was both prompt and very credible. My compliments. 24.149.110.84 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of taking office
I'm confused by your recent edits about the date of the start of a Congress. According to section 1 of the 20th amendment, The term of Senators ends on January 3, and their successors' term starts on that day. So Richard Lugar would have taken office January 3, even though the 95th United States Congress didn't assemble until January 4 (Section 2). I believe that since 1933 Congresses always have a duration of the 3rd to the 3rd, but the meeting dates are different. Whatever it is, Orrin Hatch and nine others also took office in 1977, and all of their articles say January 3. List of United States Senators in the 95th Congress by seniority and beyond all say January 3 for those taking office in 1977. A couple of those I changed myself to conform to all the others, so something then was wrong. I have seen lots of discrepancy of dates in various Congress, seniority, and Senator articles, so something is wrong somewhere. If is the 4th, then a lot of articles need to be changed, and surely the same for other years. Reywas92 Talk 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States
For the time being I have not reverted your edit to hopefully avoid edit warring, however please read my reply on the talk page. Also this is a long unresolved discussion about the issue. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Beam me up!
You are unilaterally deleting both sides of an argument, which has essential facts of a malicious prosecution. you can check sources. google Richard Detore.
 * affidavit

MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS The malicious prosecutions of James Traficant and Richard Detore were elements of the what was arguably the most serious American political crime since Watergate -- wherein the Executive Branch DOJ removed its severest Congressional critic by means of coerced, perjured, and entirely hearsay testimony from witnesses who had serious legal jeopardy for other acts. E.g., J.J. and Capri Cafaro, Allen Sinclair.

SHOW US THE MONEY! In order to protect himself, Congressman Traficant famously never used cash. And despite years of massive investigation and audits, the Government could never show a jury any 'money' whatsoever. The DOJ's case rested entirely upon the word of -- for example -- convicted perjurer J.J. Cafaro and his daughter Capri.

GET-OUT-OF-JAIL FREE In consideration for their entirely hearsay testimony, 1) the DOJ forgave J.J. Cafaro for a previous perjury conviction (J.J. did NOT serve his 18-24 month prison sentence), and 2) Capri Cafaro was NEVER investigated for the tax fraud and Torricelli money-scrubbing that were whistle blown to federal prosecutors by Richard Detore, a Cafaro Company employee who remains a patent-holding test pilot with a Top Secret federal security clearance.

C-SPAN TESTIMONY Sworn Congressional testimony about Cafaro perjury -- and about relentless DOJ pressure on Detore to lie about Traficant -- can be viewed [parked] online. The Justice Department declined to investigate these allegations of serious federal crimes, despite a public request from then Congressman (now Ohio Governor) Ted Strickland.

Furtive admirer (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment of Dick Cheney
Hey. I was wondering if you could give me an explanation for an action you took. Why you are drastically deleting large amounts of sourced information from the Impeachment of Dick Cheney page? If you were in the middle of a rewrite, understandable, but I don't see an "under construction" template at the top. Either way it's clear that's not what you're doing. "Got rid of most of the timeline for cosponsors. Updated with the proper information on H Res 799. Will submit for deletion shortly"?

I simply don't understand how deleting most of an article shortly before a plan to submit it for deletion is contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia or this article. When trying to improve an article, you should preserve the information already there. However, based on your recent statements that you're going to try to have it deleted shortly, I'm absolutely baffled as to what you're trying to do. These sudden drastic actions are very surprising, and with no explanation to the community, have unclear motives. I wasn't sure what you meant by your explanation on the talk page from a while back. Just because an article is no longer a current event, it does not mean that it is no longer notable. I realize you have always wanted deletion for this article. I understand it, I have felt the same way about some. However, just because the 110th Congress no longer exists, and the resolutions have expired, doesn't mean this event is no longer notable, forgotten, irrelevant- anything like that. It is still a well documented historical event. I also understand how you could feel politics may have played a role in determining the notability of the subject, however, the fact is that the article is notable according to Wikipedia policy, based on its many reliable sources. However I won't touch your edits until I can understand what you're trying to do.--Abusing (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this involves only the article, I'll just reply on the article's talk page so everyone can take part in the discussion. Thanks for posting on here to bring to my attention your questions. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mountainside Hospital
First of all, let's be clear - no portion of Mountainside Hospital is in Montclair, so when you say "portions of the Hospital lie in both towns" you are repeating a commonly-held, but completely false, belief. The Star Ledger had a great article on this a few years ago (which was the source of the referenced Baristanet article), unfortunately, the Ledger does not keep their stories available online forever. And, in spite of your statement to the contrary, there are lots of independent sources showing the exact location of Mountainside Hospital, they are just not available online. Maps are available from both the Borough of Glen Ridge and the Township of Montclair. Every map that shows the boundary between Glen Ridge and Montclair shows that the hospital is completely within Glen Ridge - because it is. I was able to find one online map that actually shows the border, which is the one referenced in the article itself.
 * The "Hospital" defines itself as including several buildings and a large campus. The Hospital is the best judge of what it defines when it uses that term; portions of Mountainside Hospital lie in both towns" is an accurate statement, especially as far as the Hospital is concerned.


 * I prefer using the dictionary to define words:


 * The wiktionary definition of hospital:


 * ===Noun===


 * A building designed to diagnose and treat the sick, injured or
 * dying. Usually has a staff of doctors and nurses to aid in the treatment
 * of patients.

There may or may not be "lots of independent sources" showing the exact location of Mountainside Hospital -- I'm glad that you were "able to find one online map that actually shows the border" but I submit that constitutes Original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia.


 * You clearly don't understand the definition of Original research

Your could hire surveyors and plot the entire area yourself to prove your point; such information would be unacceptable for inclusion in wikipedia unless independent, reliable media sources reported thereon.


 * Yes - that would be original research

Bring some actual, legitimate, independent, non-OR sources to this debate instead of just your research.


 * A published map, not published by me, is actual, legitimate and independent.

And no, this is not a silly debate.
 * Oh man, yes it absolutely is. You can tell by the lack of ANY verifiable, independent source which discusses this issues except a blog post from a local blog.
 * And a published map, which is much more than you have offered. As I said, the Ledger, which is the largest paper in the state, ran a large article on this. It is unfortunate that it is not available online, but it isn't. Nevertheless, the Baristanet article independently references the Ledger article, again, much more than you have offered.

Facts are facts, and where something is located is a fact.
 * Sure; but if where something is located is different from where everyone believes it to be located, what direction do we go in? Ellis Island is technically in New Jersey, but does anyone think of that when they reference that island?
 * Any article on Ellis Island would, and should, discuss the location issue.

And it is far from trivial - you could even say it is a matter of life and death - birth and death certificates for the hospital are issued by Glen Ridge. Crimes committed at the hospital are investigated by the Glen Ridge Police Department, the resultant reports are filed in Glen Ridge, and are included in Glen Ridge's crime statistics.
 * Let us be clear: this is not a matter of life and death, birth and death records notwithstanding. The mere suggestion this debate is more than merely academic is absurd.
 * You can talk about crime stats all you want, but that's irreverent. I could just as easily point to the Fire Department. If a fire breaks out at Mountainside Hospital, is the Glen Ridge Fire Department going to be the only group that appears? (a)No, of course not, because that would be a silly consideration during a fire alarm. (b)No, of course not, because Glen Ride doesn't even have a fire department. So you can point to all the crime stats and GR cops that service Mountainside and I'll point to all the Fire Department units from the Township of Montclair that service Mountainside. .It's.An.Absurd.Argument.
 * Since Glen Ridge pays Montclair for Fire Protection, you could use the same argument to argue the Glen Ridge Borough Hall is in Montclair, and your logic would be equally flawed.

The hospital is subsidized by Glen Ridge taxpayers (although less so since it went for-profit - because now property taxes are paid to Glen Ridge by the hospital).
 * Subsidized by Glen Ridge taxpayers? Are you kidding? As you mentioned, it's a for-profit hospital that PAYS Glen Ridge taxes. Additionally, even before it was a for-profit institution, how did GR taxpayers "subsidize" the hospital? Town revenue went to its operations???
 * As I said, less so since the hospital went "For-profit", but start with the Fire Protection - I'm sure that washes away most, if not all, of the property tax revenue. Add Police protection. Sewer. Water. Roads. Just as importantly to this discussion, Montclair taxpayers do not subsidize the hospital - why should they - it's in Glen Ridge.

But even forgetting about the local angle, it is also a question of accuracy. An encyclopedia should strive to be, first and foremost, factually accurate, and to the extent an encyclopedia is inaccurate, it does its readers and itself a disservice.
 * An encyclopedia, especially one that prides itself on being user-generated, user-edited, that willfully ignores what is the common usage of terms does itself and its readers a disservice, too. Mountainside Hospital itself claims that it is a Montclair institution, with a Montclair address, and that its campus lies in both Glen Ridge and Montclair. Wikipedia should not ignore the obvious: the common view of its location is Montclair.
 * I agree that discussion of the misconceptions regarding its location is important (that's why there is a whole section on location), but I must disagree with your contention that any encyclopedia should reflect "the common view" as opposed to the actual facts of the matter.

That said, given the template issues, I suppose that the way it is stated in the infobox currently is factually accurate and, while not ideal, is acceptable to me. HerbertMMarx (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I anticipate an answer soon on being able to adjust the label of "Location" to "Address" at which point I assume you'll be fine going back to Montclair. I'll also reconsider leaving the situation as-is as a reasonable compromise.
 * I already stated what I think the ideal listing would be, I think it should reflect both the actual location and the mailing address. In the meantime, I have no objection to it staying as-is (BTW, I moved the Montclair part from "Region" to "Location" to get rid of the comma (the only visible difference between what you had and what I put), and to put the link to Montclair, NJ as opposed to the Montclair disambiguation page). If "Region" serves a searchable function, then let's leave it as you have it, but I believe that the link should be changed to Montclair, NJ (as opposed to just Montclair) - if you have no objection.


 * Side question: What is your connection, if any, to the Borough of Glen Ridge?
 * I have made no claim of any connection.


 * JasonCNJ (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * HerbertMMarx (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Designated survivor
Hi Jason, I've reverted part of the changes you made to Designated survivor, the source provided does not back up the reversal of a statement which was sourced. I left a note explaining my reasoning on the article talk page. I'd be quite interested if there were other more detailed sources regarding this (now moot, but nevertheless unique) situation. Wine Guy  Talk  02:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, no need to apologize, it's an interesting discussion. Given the difference of opinion here, one can only hope that this discussion remains forever hypothetical. Wine Guy   Talk  02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Senate seniority list
Thanks for your contributions to the work in progress in my sandbox. I'm pretty sure that the list will remain fluid for a while - even if Manchin and Coons are sworn in today, they may (or may not) be given retroactive seniority to the day after the election, and as I understand it from your note and elsewhere, the Kirk situation is even more uncertain. But we might as well set up as much as we can and plug in the additional information as it develops. Best, JTRH (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my earlier error on Kirk. We'll have to wait and see when he takes his seat. More importantly, may I ask, what makes you think that Senators-elect Machin and Coons would be given "retroactive seniority?" Where'd you come across that term? In my experience and with what I know of Senate precedent, such a concept is wholly foreign to Senate practice. Senators-elect and Senators-designate get seniority starting with the day they are sworn-in and become Senators. They do NOT get (and never have been given, I submit) "credit" for "Senate service" before the date of their swearing-in or based on when they were elected. They don't have any "Senate service" until their become Senators. Do you have a cite for the idea? JasonCNJ (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's undoubtedly not the official term for it, but in my understanding, a Senator who's elected to fill a vacancy is considered to have taken office the day after the election even if not formally sworn in until later. I need to research this some more and find a definitive citation, but here's a (different) example of seniority being granted retroactively: Jan. 3, 1987, was a Saturday. The 100th Congress wasn't sworn in until Tuesday, Jan. 6, per the resolution passed at the end of the 99th. And yet, the Senators (and Representatives) who took their oaths on the 6th are listed as beginning their terms on the 3rd. That change was actually made several years after the fact. The following is the Senate's all-time service list, which I've been trying unsuccessfully to link from my sandbox:
 * I'm pretty sure that Terry Sanford of NC (who served the last two months of the deceased John East's term as well as the six-year term that followed) didn't literally take his oath on the day after the election, but he's listed as beginning his service on Nov. 5, 1986. If Coons, Kirk and Manchin are all considered to have begun their terms on Nov. 3, 2010, the seniority order would be ex-Rep.Kirk, ex-Gov. Manchin, Coons; otherwise, it's Manchin-Coons-Kirk. It's true that in any event, the three of them, in whatever order, are ahead of those whose predecessors won't leave office until January. So it would be nothing more than a minor adjustment to the list if those three eventually change places. I may e-mail the Secretary of the Senate and see if they can enlighten us or give us the definite answer. JTRH (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked your userpage. I got two Master's at GW. Great place! JTRH (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from The New York Times paid archive, so I probably can't link to it, but in 1986, Terry Sanford took the Senatorial oath on Dec. 10, for the last month of East's term, and the Senate lists his service as beginning on Nov. 5. The article is dated Nov. 15, 1986. It's no big deal for the article, except that we may have to keep an eye on the Senate's official rankings to see if the three move up or down with respect to each other. Clearly, they'll be 98-99-100, in whatever combination, for the remainder of this Congress, and ahead of the other freshmen as of Jan. 3. JTRH (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One more, from the Congressional Record: Sam Brownback resigned from the House on Nov. 25, 1996, and was sworn in to the Senate (Bob Dole's old seat) on Nov. 27, yet the Senate seniority record lists him as beginning on Nov. 7. I don't know the term for it, and it may very well not be "retroactive seniority," but whatever it is, it exists. JTRH (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. Coemgenus 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)