User talk:Joraejean

Jefferson
Hi back.

The ideas of attaching a 21st century name to a 18th centry person needs more of an explanation. You can't say truthfully that Thomas Jefferson was a Republican because if you look at his beliefs, he was not. You have to state somewhere that the defination of a Republican in 1800 may not be what it is today...and you certainly would see no simularies to todays Republican.

And the same goes with Jacksonsonian...It is decieving to state in any way his beliefs, once stated as being the beginning of the democratic party are in anyway the same as in the 21st century.

You need to make a clarification as to what the platforms were back in 1800 - otherwise it is mislead. Education and the majority, farm labors were what Jefferson stood for...How can you put one of those words together with Republican in the 21st century?
 * well this is all wrong. Jefferson was the great exponent of republicanism and founded a party he called the Republican Party. It died out about 1820--the modern GOP was named after it. see Republicanism in the United States. Rjensen (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

KISS Keep it simple...

Federalist....Banks.....Alexander Hamilton Jeffersonian....Labor...Majority rule

Think no further than what was going on...there is and always will be just the two...Owner (Corporations, banks and wealthy).....and Labor (Farmers and workers)...there is basically NOTHING ELSE...

SO WHO IS JEFFERSON, IF HE IS NOT A FEDERALIST????

1818 January 14. (to Joseph C. Cabell) "Now let us see what the present primary schools cost us, on the supposition that all the children of 10. 11. & 12. years old are, as they ought to be, at school: and, if they are not, so much the work is the system; for they will be untaught, and their ignorance & vices will, in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences, than it would have done, in their correction, by a good education."

Jefferson set forth a comprehensive plan of public education broadly based in primary schools, rising as in a pyramid through secondary schools, with a state university at the apex. The dual mission was, first, “to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large,” and second, to ensure that “those persons whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue” — Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy” — should be educated to the limits of their abilities in order the better to serve the mass of citizens....From http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.html

Is that a Bank notion or is that a Labor notion?

From the Wikipedia Site Jeffersonian Democracy...

The Federalist Party, especially its leader Alexander Hamilton, was the arch-foe, because of its acceptance of aristocracy and British methods

The yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences; government policy should be for his benefit.

DOESN'T THIS STATMENT BELONG WITH THE FEDERALIST PART STATMENT ABOVE????? Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the 'cesspools of corruption', and should be avoided.[11]

The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most Anti-Federalists from 1787–88 joined the Jeffersonians. COMMON BENEFIT???? THAT CERTAINLY IS THINGS LIKE HEALTH CARE, THE CENTER OF DISEASE...CERTAINLY NOT A FEDERALIST IDEA...

REMEMBER...ONLY TWO CHOICES....FEDERAL AND LABOR...THESE ARE THE TAGS USED AT THE TIME...YOU WANT TO BRING THEM INTO MODERN DAY....AND USE TERMONOLONGY THAT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED...YOU MUST CHOSE EITHER FEDERALIST OR LABOR.

Separation of church and state is the best method to keep government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.[13] CERTAINLY NOT A DREAM OF THE CURRENT REPUBLIAN PARTY...SO DIRECTING PEOPLE TO THINK THIS BELIEFE STEAMS FROM THE ORIGION OF 1800 REPUBLICISM IS FALSE...

The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.[14] NOW IS THIS A DREAM OF REPUBLICANS...VOTERS RIGHTS???

ON AND ON IT GOES....JEFFERSONIAN MAY HAVE USED THE TERM REPUBLICAN...BUT HE AINT NO 21ST CENTURY REPUBLIAN..

I doubt you will ever get it...the term had no meaning, but the platform does.
 * I recommend reading a book on Jefferson--there are many good ones given in the Further Reading. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to John Birch Society
I have removed the discussion of the history of the US Constitution from the article; to begin with, that content would belong at the article Originalism, which is linked from the phrase originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which was what you were expanding. Secondly, you need to have reliable sources which meet Wikipedia's standards in order to include such explanatory text, or you run the risk of violating our no original research policy. Please read the linked pages, you will find them helpful. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. Killer Chihuahua 03:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Ms. KillerChihuahua


 * I see the entire paragraph has been removed. I think that is for the best.


 * "The society upholds an Originalism interpretation of the Articles of Confederation from 1781 and our current U.S. Constitution, which replaced it in 1789."


 * Although, the truth being, the Articles of Confederation is what the society has decided is what was intended and ignores the current Constitution.


 * Even though our Fore Father were still alive...and CONTRIBUTED EVERYTHING TO THE NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION...they prefer the Articles of Confederation which gave 'the final authority' to the States and not the Federal Government - Which, of course, the final Constitution changed.


 * Pointing out the methods of thought of the society can help the reader understand the antiquated, pick and chose methods used by the society. It's just the facts.- Joraejean Dec 22, 2012 (Pacific Coast Time)

Minor edits
I notice that your edits are usually marked as minor edits, even when they are major and controversial. Please fix this, as it is viewed as deceptive editing, and continuing to do so after being warned (like right now) is considered disruptive and thus a blockable offense. You can make a change in your "preferences" so that edits are not automatically marked as "minor." In fact, it is never required, nor really "necessary," to mark an edit as "minor." Reserve it for strictly minor housekeeping and gnome activities, if you really want to take the bother to mark it. (It's easier to just not do it, but that's your choice.) Please read: Help:Minor edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that matter. BTW, I formatted your apparent heading below so it has its own section where people can comment. Now it will show in the TOC (Table of Contents). You need to look at the code of how others format things and then copy that way of doing it. Learn to indent as well by using colons or bulleting. Otherwise, thanks again. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RIGHT WING POLITICS
This is what it says...and it reads as an opinion about all definations of political leanings...LEAVE IT OUT.

"Some historians and social scientists seek to reduce political beliefs to class, with left, center, and right politicians representing the working, middle, or upper classes Others draw attention to the role which religious, ethnic, and regional differences play in democratic politics"

IF IT IS TO REMAIN, IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED...BE MORE CLEAR...RIGHT NOW WE HAVE=

Some historians and social scientists seek to reduce political beliefs TO.... 1 class, 2. with left, 3. center, 4. and right politicians representing the working, middle, or upper classes

How do you reduce political belifes to 'class' The 'classes' would be correct, because the subject is not singular - it generally comes in upper, middle and lower.

The topic is Right-Wing Politics...

'AND THE WORST....WORST...is number 4....Which reads as if the right politicians represent the working middle and upper class!!!!!'

For God's sake...can't you see what misinformation this sentence states? It's a quote from a book written in the 60's, and who know where it was origionally placed? I would guess it might have been in a preface to explain general 'leanings'of each side. If that was the case, only the leaning of the right should be in this sentance.

Same with the 'general' last sentenance=

"Others draw attention to the role which religious, ethnic, and regional differences play in democratic politics"

Just a general statment that could be for either left or right leaning...so it really doesn't belong in a specific group under 'Right-Wing'

Your's Truly,

Joraejean January 20, 2013


 * This is apparently about edits and content in the Right-wing politics article. This is the wrong place to discuss this matter. You need to stop the edit warring and violations of WP:BRD and make these comments on the article's discussion (talk) page. I'll leave you a warning template with instructions about edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Right-wing politics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

=
=====

=
===

=
=========

Right Wing Republican

I hope BullRangifer also got the message. See below. I posted why....he just keeps changing it.

(cur | prev) 06:41, 21 January 2013‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (11,201 bytes) (+1,359)‎. . (Substing templates: Your recent editing history  shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.  Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.  Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.) (undo) (cur | prev) 06:23, 21 January 2013‎ BullRangifer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,842 bytes) (+13)‎ . . (Needs a heading so it appears in the TOC. Change the wording if you like.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 06:19, 21 January 2013‎ BullRangifer (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,830 bytes) (+582)‎. . (→‎RIGHT WING POLITICS: comment and add section with instructions) (undo) (cur | prev) 06:12, 21 January 2013‎ BullRangifer (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,248 bytes) (+449)‎. . (→‎Minor edits: thanks) (undo)

Per Bull...................

(cur | prev) 06:23, 21 January 2013‎ BullRangifer (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,842 bytes) (+13)‎. . (Needs a heading so it appears in the TOC. Change the wording if you like.)

I gess I better way a few day, and look up TOC


 * TOC stands for "Table of contents," as I wrote above. It is at the top of this page. Each heading is there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you trying to say?
I don't know what you're trying to do above with all the non-standard formatting, no indenting, no headings, etc.. It makes it hard to know what you mean or intend. If you wish to communicate effectively at Wikipedia, then you need to learn how to edit and comment. This isn't a blog or discussion group where you can just do whatever you want. We are making an encyclopedia here and there are certain correct ways to do things. Start learning them. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask me and I'll be glad to help. Once you have mastered these things, then you can proceed to actually editing, but until then you're creating confusion.


 * Indents are made using colons or asterisks.


 * Headings are made using equals signs, starting with two on each side of the heading, and the next level uses three, and the next uses four, etc..


 * Signatures are made using four tildes, and ALWAYS sign your comments on talk pages, but NEVER sign your edits in articles.


 * Always leave an edit summary whenever you make an edit or comment.

Look at the coding on other peoples' talk pages (you can see it when you try to edit the page) to see how it's done and then do it here. What you're doing is a mess and not worth responding to.

Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm Andreasmperu. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Russian Revolution, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andreasm just talk to me  14:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=568198146 your edit] to Junker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * parts of Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, and Switzerland They were members of the landed nobility in Prussia.  They owned great
 * They obtained high tariffs that reduced competition from American grain and meat.

Iraq oil law (2007)
I think I have fixed all of your odd citations in this article. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Huon (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)