User talk:Kaisershatner/archive1

hillary
Hi. I cut the detail about the jewish vote. I don't have a problem with it per se. It just seems awfully excessive detail about a campaign squabble in a general article about hillary. The section, after all, is supposed to be about her as a Senator -- yet it contains nothing on that. Might I suggest a subarticle on the 2000 New York Senate race, to be linked from the main Hillary article? The sort of detail you are including would be quite appropriate there. I think the ethnic breakdown of the vote & possibly details on the New Square thing (with a brief mention on the main page) should also go there. Thanks. Wolfman 16:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

delay
I haven't edited the tom delay page in any substantive way. i moved the quotes to wikiquote, and added some categories. no text changes at all. i think you must have misread the edit history or something. but, will check to make sure no one has stolen my identity. Wolfman 17:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
As far as I can tell, Xed thinks you, me, two wildly different IP addresses, and possibly others, are all sock-puppets. I wouldn't take it seriously or personally. Jayjg 18:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War
Since you are editing the Lebanese Civil War article, I suggest you also look at the History of Lebanon article; there appears to be significant overlap. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your edits are very good. However, I have a remaining concern about the article, which I have listed in the Talk: page there. Jayjg (talk)  18:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep at it. Note that you need to bring along the references when you put stuff in new articles; for example, the sections you moved keep referring to "Smith", but only the old article has the actual reference. Also, you need double braces for template insertions, not single. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Lebanon
Kaisershatner: I'm a bit perplexed as to what you're attempting to do with this major edit? Are you attempting to shorten this article and split the current contributions into separate sub articles? I think it would be appropriate for you to announce your intentions, otherwise even a well intended re-engineering can come across as nothing more than vandalistic. User:Doug Danner March 3, 2005 17:02:26 (UTC)

My concern is that the actual Lebanese Civil War is usually dated from 1975-6. I made this clear in one of my edits, changing a heading so that it read: "Lebanese Civil War, 1975-6". As such, I disagree that the most of the 1975-90 History of Lebanon material should be moved to the Lebanese Civil War page. Certainly the historical context of the civil war, as well as its aftermath, is quite complex and deserving of discussion on the Civil War page. Perhaps that discussion could be derived from what Doug and I have contributed to the History of Lebanon page. However, technically, the "Lebanese Civil War" began in April 1975 (when Phalangists attacked a bus carrying Palestinians and Lebanese en route to Tel al-Zaatar from the Sabra and Shatila camps) and ended in October 1976 (with the Riyadh Accords, which required PLO withdrawal from central Lebanon and created the Arab deterrent force, the origin of Syria's continuing presence in Lebanon). So, I propose we revert to a previous version of the History of Lebanon page - one that includes Kaisershatner's section headings, which I thought were useful additions - and then convert the Lebanese Civil War page into a detailed account of the events from April '75 - October '76, with prescript and postscript derived from the complete History of Lebanon article. Thoughts? sneaky 01:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate the work, and the notion of chopping up the article is correct. I just don't want to lose the work I did with/versus Sneaky, because I think it has decent depth. Aside from my vanity, I also posted other comments about methodology on the article's talk page. Thanks for the contribution, and for having the energy to launch into this. The effort will eventually save us from making updates in multiple parallel so in the long run it's a good thing. I'm still a bit swamped with work so I only have time for minor updates, but I'll join in as soon as I can. Doug Mar 4 18:18:47 UTC 2005

Ditto Doug's comments. I also notice sections of the Doug/Sneaky narrative are cropping up elsewhere, e.g. on the PLO page, thanks to your work - good to know that the information will be available to more than just readers of History of Lebanon. Seems the "official" duration of the Lebanese Civil War is not quite clear, but at this point going with a 1975-ca.1990 duration is fine with me. What's most important is preserving the content, wherever it ends up, and that actually seems to be happening from what I've seen. So thanks for taking the time, and sorry for any aspersions cast earlier. sneaky 06:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Chickenhawk
Way to pour gasoline on the chickenhawk flame. Not that I disagree with your additions, but still...
 * &mdash;thames 17:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Cooper-Hewitt
--Thanks for the heads-up. I added your copy into the article. --Jleon 23:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove
Yes, I was suggesting that User:Carlshooter is a sockpuppet, not of you, but of the individual(s) who have lately been edit-warring on Oliver North, Laura Bush, and several other places, and subsequently trolling me, Holdek and several other users. Carlshooter appeared out of nowhere and immediately removed content from three articles (Karl Rove, Dixy Lee Ray, and Laura Ingraham), whose only connection was that they had recently been edited by me or Holdek.

As for rumors and NPOV, I think this is resolved fairly easily by cite your sources and no original research. In the case of Rove, there's a variety of accusations and rumors which have been reported on at great length in major media outlets -- these should obviously be included.

RadicalSubversiv E 02:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Killian documents
You aren't the first to try to correct the massive problems with the Killian documents article. You probably won't be the last. All such efforts will fail. This article is a case study in the limitations of the Wikipedia paradigm. It simply is not possibe to produce a satisfactory treatment of the subject. You are just wasting your time. Anonip 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What facts are in dispute exactly? zen master   T  02:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The change you made to the intro to mention the secretary by name, include her agreement with the finding of forgery, and then clarify she is the corroborating evidence was a good change. Separately, I think changes you made earlier today have resulted in there being two redundant "Background and timeline" sections. Can you clean that up? zen master   T  21:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Watching Firestorm
Hello Kaisershatner, as you were the most recent actual editor for the firestorm article, I wondered if I could ask you to please keep an eye on it for a while? An anon who apparently has access to the entire /16 network 84.144.x.x has been repeatedly commercially link-spamming the article for the last week and a half. I have been reverting them when I see them but of course I'm not always online and it would appear that no-one else has the article watch-listed, so one attack went unnoticed for several days. (I've also asked Rmhermen to watch it.) --Thanks, Securiger 15:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Securiger 14:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Bush
The criticisms didn't strike me as particularly serious--in fact I wasn't aware that there was a serious suggestion that we should remove references to Van Wormer and Frank. Bush's behavior has been a cause for comment (as was Clinton's before him) and the public appraisal of the personal character of a President is a significant factor in his life in public office. Serious histories discuss Franklin Roosevelt's polio, Kennedy's illness (I forget what it was) Clinton's philandering, and even Lincoln's symptoms of what is now known as clinical depression. There's significant public discussion of Bush's earlier life and he's finally admitted addiction to alcohol. This dimension of his Presidency should probably be reflected in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

vote on GWB article
I invite your vote on the Geroge Bush article []--MONGO 05:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I beleive there was more vandelism done to the G.W. Bush page than you were able to restore; i'm not sure how to do the reversion. Thanx. Nobs 19:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

UNderstand
I understand your point and agree. No doubt you operate at a few lower decibels than I do. Not to defend my commentary, but a few of those I combat in the Bush article are hopeless and utilize email and other forms of untraceable forms of communication to protect pages such as the one on GWB. Obviously my commentary isn't the best at times, but the truth is they utilize slanderous commentary against me and have been doing so for a long time. I will absolutely make attempts to be less hostile...thanks.

I wouldn't do that...walk away that is...that is precisely what they want. But here's the thing, we all should be working on articles we like. I am not that interested in the Bush article and many used wikipedia as a reference to surf around and just enjoy reading all sorts of different articles. Then I stumbled into the Bush article, saw what was obviously a blatent attempt to push left wing (I mean extreme left wing at that) bias and was really disappointed. I saw there was an ongoing lengthy discussion and a never ending edit war and decided to try and help. No doubt my initial attempts were just purely deletion and I was quicly attacked for this. Later I added content that helped I believe to content and was just purely factual which in most cases was watered over and in some cases, also eliminated. So, in my effort to make a point, and knowing that a quick google search for Gorge Bush brings one to the Wikipedia article on him in 1 to 5 links, I believe it is paramount to make the article truly neutral for the sake of Wikipedia. If you can maintain a cool head and continue to edit the article without letting it swallow you up you'll be fine...it is just cyberspace...but the gaol is to make it much more for the sake of the entire project. But while my lukewarm interest in the subject matter is no big deal, the oppositions blatent hatred og Bush is obvious and that really pisses me off. Anyway, perhaps just make an edit or two of contructiveness a day, add a comment or two and work elsewhere and don't let it take over your life and you'll continue to gain more respect with "them" than I ever have.--MONGO 14:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Ulster
No problem. (It's the Latin for "by right of his wife", by the way.) Proteus (Talk) 14:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankish Kings
Hello kaisershatner, thanks for asking for my input on your changes to List of Frankish Kings. If you want my honest opinion, I don't find this very useful for two reasons. One, the boxes as they are look terrible on my screen resolution... they are simply too big and don't float around the tables correctly. If you're interested, I can make a screenshot of the mess as it looks here. Second, I'm not quite sure why it should be necessary to duplicate the entire list of kings in the template boxes in the first place. As far as I can tell, practice has been to make a list of office holders and then have a box at the bottom of each biography page listing the successor and predecessor, as for example in Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor. I think your approach is inconsistent with that, and it doesn't apply well to other pages... a similar box with a List of German Kings and Emperors, for example, would have to be enourmous in size.

Sorry for the negative input. But then I'm really not around Wikipedia much any more (I read much, but edit little for lack of time), so feel free to discard my opinion as unconstructive. :-)

(If you want to reply, please do so on my talk page, otherwise I won't notice.)

GameFAQs
I only blocked two of them, I think there were a few more roaming around as well. Hopefully it has stopped for now. Adam Bishop 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Snape
Hi! I saw your (short-lived) expansion of the "Loyalty" section for Severus Snape and thought it was well stated. The editorial consensus on that page, however, is keeping that section very minimal. See this other recent expanded version (based on my own attempt at a balanced presentation of the prevailing views) for another example of a more comprehensive, but rejected, approach. I wish the consensus were different, but...oh well. St. Chris 20:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Subtle clipping
It's my pleasure - and thanks very much for the cordial note. My rationale for the edit is on a few levels, and I shan't bore you with the details - but given the context, the implication of the word 'resounding' (that it's meaning echoes after the fact in a profound way) doesn't describe the 'defeat'. In fact, I'd argue that Boxer's single 'Yea' vote had a resonance far more profound than the 'defeat' of her objection. Anyway, Kaisershatner, it's nice to meet you, and thanks again for the good words. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bond girls and religion
The reason I called it irrelevant is that I fail to see the purpose in identifying the religion of three actresses. If you want to list this, then you need to also list all the actresses who are Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Scientologist ... it doesn't serve a purpose, even as trivia, and it's unmaintainable since people do switch religions from time to time as well. 23skidoo 16:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Whittle
I actually just finished reading Tribes and the comments, and decided to see what Wikipedia had to say about Whittle. My edit was pretty minor; perhaps sometime I'll be able to flesh it out a little. Jpers36 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

BioCOTW Project
You voted for  Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, this weeks' Biography Collaboration of the weeks. Please come and help them become a featured-standard article.--Falphin 22:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Reform Judaism
Please see Talk:Reform Judaism page for a comment about the Reform Judaism article. Zargulon 16:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

BioCOTW

 * Thanks for updating the page, I've been extroardinarily busy, and I doubt that will change any time soon. Thanks again. Falphin 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw your changes with the project, and am very grateful and looks much better. Awesome job! Oh, and one thing I mentioned that I'm sure you saw but wasn't what I meant was that Damascus only had till the 9th. What I meant was the 16th, I just didn't realize the date hadn't been update but thanks for all of the work. I will try to edit the current nomination because I think I might have some free time tommorow. Falphin 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't get very involved in the last COTW, I saw you did the majority of the editing. I don't think I could of added much anyway since you did so much. The only thing left is really some grammar clean up but I really can't do much with that. I hope you didn't mind me updating it, I just felt there wasn't much work left. Falphin 19:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to trim it. I will sometimes let ones with more votes stay over but I simply forgot about Shirazis. Will take out. Thanks for the note oh and always Be Bold you haven't made a bad change yet. :) Falphin 00:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * updated. Falphin 21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Pope Damasus I
You're wellcome Kaisershatner. Keep up the very good work! The Ogre 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE dating style
There's currently some petty business going on in the Hebrew calendar article about which dating era to use, and I get the feeling this is being hijacked by people who for some reason seem to care very much about this. Since you showed up many times as a regular contributor I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion on this on the talk page. squell 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fernão Mendes Pinto
I was wondering how many of the books listed in references were actual references. If they all were, thats fine I will reference them all but I wasn't sure if some of them were meant to be under Further Reading. Falphin 18:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I will probably keep the main book and move others to Further Reading. The three references(maybe 4 if I add a Trivia section) will be plenty for that article since there really isn't anything else to verify. Thanks again. Falphin 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Roger J. Traynor
Thank you for taking the trouble to explain your edits, which I initially found troubling.

I am familiar with the Cato article, and after considering your edits carefully, I do concede that it should be cited, although not necessarily quoted to such length.

The problem with many of the critiques of Traynor's aggressive lawmaking from the bench is that they come from non-lawyers who do not understand the role of stare decisis in the common law system of law.

In the civil law system of law, the sole source of law is the legislature, and a judge's reasoning in any given case will not bind himself or other judges in future cases, unless and until the legislature enacts that reasoning into positive law.

In contrast, in the common law, the rule of stare decisis implies that judges do have limited lawmaking powers. Stare decisis implies that in any given case, a judge's reasoning in that case may bind other judges to the extent that a lawyer can persuade those judges that the reasoning in the earlier case is applicable to the present case; that is, a judge will defer to how a similar earlier case was decided, if they are convinced it is similar.

Since all legal rules are driven by an underlying public policy (what we are trying to accomplish on a society-wide level in the long run with these rules), it is perfectly acceptable to justify a new rule on the basis that it is consonant with public policy. Of course, there is a constant tension between the judiciary and the legislature as a result (since the legislature has to keep slapping down case holdings they don't like), but that is the point. The best analogy I have heard is that there is a "conversation" going on between the two about what the future of the law should be.

This is why nearly all law-trained persons (myself included) do not take seriously people who keep complaining that judges are making law from the bench, because that is what judges have been doing for almost a thousand years in the English-speaking world.

Indeed, much of British common law developed as so-called "judge-made law," and the United States inherited those legal principles. Some of these have been repackaged into codifications known as Restatements.

Even some of the most conservative judges on the bench today (such as Richard Posner and Janice Rogers Brown) have not questioned the ability of common law judges to make law, especially in areas where the legislature has not explicitly overridden all existing judge-made law (much of tort law, for example, is still judge-made). What they do question is the tendency of some judges (e.g., Earl Warren), to fashion rules that are arguably quite broad in comparison to the evil that needs to be addressed in the particular case.

For example, in the 2002 case of Jiminez v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed (as it has done many times) the Greenman product liability rule and extended it to cover component products installed in buildings and sold as part of real property. Brown dissented, of course, from the majority holding.

But Brown, well-known for her ultraconservative political views (just run some Google searches), did not question Justice Traynor's power to promulgate the rule announced in Greenman, nor did she question the legitimacy of that rule or even suggest that it should be overturned (as she has done for many existing precedents that she felt did go too far). Rather, she attacked the majority for extending Traynor's rule in a way which he never intended. The original reason behind strict liability was to prevent devastating personal injury to consumers. In Escola, the plaintiff's hand was severely cut and scarred when a Coca-Cola glass bottle spontaneously exploded; in Greenman, the plaintiff lost an eye. But Brown pointed out, the damage at issue before the Court in Jiminez was essentially economic damage (a slightly less pleasant house). Thus there was much less need for the drastic remedy of strict liability.

Well, I hope this clears things up a bit. So what I am eventually going to do (once other people stop fooling around with the article) is shorten but keep the criticism you put in; that is a common criticism of Traynor's work by laypersons, and I suppose it should stay. But I also plan to balance it with an explanation and a link to stare decisis. --Coolcaesar 05:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Where R U ?
Please check out Talk:Killian documents, Talk:Stolen Honor and Talk:John Kerry. The entrenched editor there are running out of excuses. I have begun pointing them to Negotiation and Consensus decision-making. When measured by those standards, I believe that Gamaliel, JamesMLane and others can't justify many of their reverts and edits. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

CfD
If you got a minute can you take a look at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 20:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

American conservatism
Thanks for the major intro edit to the American conservatism article from a few days back. It sounds much fairer, the contempt being stripped away. I had always had a major problem with it but didn't want to mess with it. But I think you've done the trick. - ElAmericano | talk 20:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilderness Road
No problem, lucky we both noticed what was going on since I managed to revert your fix... --Pgk 19:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gui2u Reply
Thanks for your welcome. As far as proper protocol, when Thames challenged my change, he reverted to his text. Does that mean that I would typically revert to my text every time I post a response on the Talk page and we go back and forth? Or does one wait until the discussion reaches a resolution before putting one's changes back?

Thanks!

Gui2u 00:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Tumbling Dice on WP:FAC
I took the plunge and nominated it for FAC. If you'd like to voice any more opinions on it, go there. On most FACs, you have two or three people commenting in the first few hours or on the first day 24 hrs and I get one guy on a weak oppose. It's the waiting that getting to me. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow
You work fast! I made this article in about five minutes, and you already added very good info. Keep up the good work!



Take care,  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  20:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well look at it now, it has grown some more : ).  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  21:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

USS Quirinus
If I recall, the info in question was moved from another list...so please feel free to make the edit...DANFS is pretty well recognized as a reliable source. Joshbaumgartner 19:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address
Thanks so much for taking the time to improve the Gettysburg Address article. Your beneficial changes and additions are exactly what I hoped would happen when I requested a Peer Review for this article. In your most recent message posted to Talk:Gettysburg Address, you suggested that this article was approaching the point that we might consider requesting Feature Article status, which is the goal that I was working towards as well. At what point do you think I should change its status from "Request for Peer Review" to "Request for Featured Article Status?" Bart 00:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks also for clarifying the issue of archiving old talk rather than deleting them. In time, I'll no doubt learn the Wikipedia protocol.

>OMG you're going to love what I just found in the public domain.

Nice job!! What a wonderful addition to the article! Bart 03:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The West Wing (television)
Given Monicadudes trolling list of extremely minor complaints over the FAC, Scm and I would be ecstatic if you could vote support! Please see the FAC for discussion of your points! Thanks! Staxringold 04:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Long Goodbye
Your edit is definitely better, but the earlier sentence was grammatically sound. The phrase "with scars on the side of his face" is prepositional and isn't modified by the adjectival phrase that followed. But like I said, your way is clearer. Cheers! | Klaw ¡digame! 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address -a reply
>>> Hey - I saw your recent edit so I know you're around. I think it's time to resubmit to Peer review, and hopefully make a final push toward FA status. (see my notes at Talk:Gettysburg Address). You agree? Kaisershatner 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

>> Yes, that approach sounds good to me. Perhaps after one more round of peer review edits, this article will be ready to be nominated for Featured Article status. We'll keep in touch. Happy Holidays! Bart 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address nomination and thank you
Kaisershatner,

I'll be more than happy to! Thank you for allowing me to nominate the Gettysburg Address article to Featured Article status. We've both done a great deal of work to bring this article to the brink of Featured Article status. Hopefully, we can celebrate its promotion to that lofty perch very soon. Bart 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is done! I believe I did everything in accordance with proper Wikipedia procedure, but feel free to make corrections if they are needed. And once again, thanks for your outstanding contributions to this article. Bart 20:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you! I have a question about the FAC process to which I cannot find an answer. As our Gettysburg Address article continues to gather support (hooray!), who and when does someone make a final determination to make it a Featured Article? Does it have to obtain x number of supports, or is there an individual or committee of individuals that makes the final determination? Bart 16:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on Gettysburg Address article!
Kaisershatner,

I just returned from out of town to discover that our Gettysburg Address article is now a Featured Article! Hooray! I was also very excited to discover that the administrator who bestowed that honor is User:Raul654, who is the person who chooses the featured articles that appear on the main page each day. I like your idea of requesting that it appear as a article of the day long before the November 19th anniversary. Lincoln's February 12th birthday is a great idea! Thanks again for your invaluable contributions to what is now considered the "cream of the crop" of Wikipedia articles. We should both feel very proud! Bart 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

killian
thanks for the heads-up on your changes. i haven't had a chance to look at them or respond, and won't for a while (busy, busy). but, i do appreciate your good-faith in bringing them to my attention. Derex 17:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Brick by brick
Salve, Kaisershatner! I am most impressed with your contributions to the article I began on the Bricker Amendment. I've not been able to work on Wikipedia very much in the last few weeks so you've been carrying all the water your own. My quick readthrough of your amendments finds a good article. I'm planning to print it out for a closer examination and I plan to add some additional material gleaned from off-line research. I'd also like to look at the New York Times coverage from the period. Therefore, I'm withdrawing the stalled FAC candidacy, which is mainly "opposed" votes and hope to bring it up again in a few weeks. Again, you have done excellent work for which I'm awarding you a barnstar. Keep it up. PedanticallySpeaking 16:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to look at Caro's Master of the Senate as well as Johnson claimed he found the votes for Eisenhower to block it. The documents from the time we would really like, e.g. the Congressional Record, aren't on-line to my knowledge.  The Congressional Digest, a private publication that reprints excerpts from debates, ran several of the debates in its issues.  I'll have to see if they have an on-line archive.  But I have looked at Time magazine from 1953 and have some stuff I'd like to add.  I have access on-line to The New York Times and want to search 1953 for information.  Most likely they would roll calls on the important votes.  I'll let you know.  As for my frustrations, you haven't contributed.  You've been making substantive contributions.  Many of the people who are most critical I do not see adding to the work.  (But maybe I'm not looking in the right places.)  I saw you were doing a bunch of work, so I left you alone on your editing.  I didn't want to get in your way.  This is one reason I do a lot of work on obscure topics, e.g. James Aubrey, because I'd like to do my own thing.  I have some obligations that might keep me from it for a couple weeks, but I do plan to work on this topic later.  What subjects are you working on besides the Bricker Amendment?  Ave!  PedanticallySpeaking 15:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got Caro's Master of the Senate. There's about twenty pages about our topic.  I'm also having the library get the Judiciary Committee report (over 1000 pages!) and some dissertations on the subject.  But I'm plugging away on it.  Let me know if I can help with your work.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Kaiser! Have been doing a good bit of reading on the Bricker Amendment but I am still not ready to start editing. But I will let you know when I do.  In the meanwhile, I've got one of my articles up on WP:FAC, namely Bob McEwen.  I'd appreciate your comments at Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

a philosophical note
i was just reading you user page & noted your comments regarding treatment of impeachment. i'm not trying to debate you here, but just sharing the thought process of someone generally on the other side (though i do detest 'labor union liberalism'). i, at least, always find it interesting to hear how the other political side thinks. and i'd be interested in your viewpoints in turn. though if you don't find this sort of thing welcome, simply delete it and ignore me ... no harm meant. this isn't just random political musings; it's relevant here because your user page essentially charges that the wiki is politically biased.

you can look at the impeachment treatment another way. true, nixon wasn't impeached. but that was because he resigned to avoid it. he resigned to avoid it because he knew he would be convicted. he knew he would be convicted because he really was guilty of abuses of office, and they had the goods on him. he knew he would be convicted because his crimes were so serious that many senators of his own party told him they would vote for conviction. remember, it takes 2/3 which takes a lot of republicans, and they had the votes.

in contrast, clinton was impeached for offenses having nothing to do with official duties. "high crimes & misdemeanors" is a term which historically meant treason or serious abuse of office. neither of these applied. second, the vote was party line. i think it was 3 in the house & none in the senate who voted for impeachment. now, if you can't persuade anyone on the other side that you're right, maybe you're wrong.

the widespread perception is that, while the scandal was quite important, impeachment was a purely cynical partisan & political exercise. most don't view it as a serious & responsible exercise of the impeachment power. in fact, most actually view it as an abuse of power by congressional republicans, rather than by clinton. that's why clinton's approval ratings hit their highest point, above 70%, during impeachment. do you honestly think that if george w. bush had done exactly what clinton did, that he would be impeached right now? not a chance. (with or without the clinton precedent). nixon's case was quite different, and i don't think it's because republicans have higher ethical standards (see e.g. abrahamoff).

so, while you see it as bias that impeachment is mentioned in the lede to nixon, but not to clinton, i see it quite differently. i would view it as outrageous bias if it _weren't_ mentioned in nixon ... because it effectively removed him from office whether or not trial took place ... most people in prison never had trials either. what does this have to do with wiki? sometimes you will see bias when other people are doing their level-best to be objective and neutral. that's not to say the people trying their best can't be biased. but, it may be that one's own perception of bias is itself biased. i'm sure mine often is.

finally, as to vandalism of conservative's pages ... who's in power right now? perhaps that explains it. kerry certainly took his share of vandalism & trolling when he was relevant, during the election.

best regards, and all meant quite civilly and friendly-like. Derex 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your thoughtful response. i found it quite interesting.  i guess you hit the nail on the head about where we differ on 2 points.  first, and less importantly, was it an abuse of office? as you said, clinton _might_ have violated the law through perjury (which is quite debatable for multiple reasons).  he _certainly_ showed poor character.  however, as you said _any_ citizen might have done these things. these are not about the _office_ or _power_ of the presidency, nor was the alleged perjury about official business. nixon's offences went straight to the heart of the office of the presidency. the reading of most constitutional scholars is that was the intent of impeachment: treason, or abuse of the powers of the presidency.  if g.w. bush has any luck at all, he's almost certainly committed the felony of getting a blow job while in office (from his wife, while in certain states prior to June 2003). if not, maybe that explains why he's so frickin irritable should that be impeachable?


 * second, and actually the only relevant for wikipedia: in 100 years, what will be notable about clinton? i don't think that will be impeachment; you disagree.  i believe it will be viewed much as the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, which is primarily known today as a bogus affair on trumped-up charges for political reasons.  that's not why johnson is primarily notable, as any schoolkid who reads his assignments knows. however, it is important as a reflection of the bitter political climate of his time.  while ours hardly compares with the post-civil war era, this impeachment was a symptom of the the bitter partisanship of our time. does impeachment belong in the lede? i'd say yes for that reason.  should it receive a lengthy discussion there, i'd say no for that reason.


 * it's sad how the political bitterness feeds upon itself. i admit, impeachment embittered me, though i voted independent at the time.  i won't vote any republican for a very long time after that.  but, i'm not a democrat either.  the bitterness is part of what bothers me about the exercise.  the republicans _knew_ that the country would be extremely divided by this, _and_ that it would fail, _and_ that it was at best a questionable exercise of their powers.  they pursued it anyway, and i don't believe for a second they were placing the good of the nation over the good of their party. as to democrats not demonstrating good faith by the party line vote, i see it quite differently. the burden of removing a democratically elected president should be a very high one.  there are people of good faith and good character in both parties.  if the democrats actually viewed clinton as a threat to the country, i have no doubt at all they would have voted for removal ... just the same as the republicans as a whole demonstrated their ultimate integrity during the nixon affair.


 * at any rate, i appreciate your thoughts, and will mull your views over at greater length. Derex 17:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone
Hi! You said: Isn't there a template for {nonencyclopedic tone}? You're looking for cleanup-tone. Punkmorten 15:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Braganza
Well. This issue is quite complex:
 * First I think we ought to stick with Braganza, as it is the most common spelling in English.
 * Secondly, we have the Duchy, the Dukedom, the Duke, the House, the Royal House and the Dynasty of Braganza.
 * Duchy of Braganza - the physical location of the Dukedom in the north of Portugal. This is almost irrelevant, as the duchy itself had real few importance. The dukes lived in Vila Viçosa (in southern Portugal).
 * Dukedom and Duke of Braganza - We should have articles and respective redirects for this two. The dukedom itself and the "Duke of Braganza" should have the same article. When the House of Braganza became a Royal House, the title of Duke was given to the heir of the king, so the title had nothing to do with the King or Kingdom of Portugal.
 * Royal House of Braganza - This is the House of Braganza in power. Since 1640 the House of Braganza is a Royal House. Even after 1910 the Royal House of Braganza still exists and is recognized by many European Royal Houses until today in spite of Portugal being a republic since 1910.
 * Dynasty - The Dynasty of Braganza (Portuguese 4th dynasty - after Burgundy, Aviz and Philippine) starts in 1640 but ends in 1910 with the republican revolution.
 * House - The House of Braganza article should reflect all the other articles with the history of the house since the beginning (creation of the Dukedom) until today as a Royal House not in power.

Now lets compare Braganza with the other dynasties.
 * 1) House of Burgundy - The House of Burgundy is connected with the Duchy and County of Burgundy. In Portugal they managed to become a Royal House in 1139 when Afonso Henriques became the first king of Portugal. The name of the 1st Dynasty is Dynasty of Burgundy or Afonsine Dynasty, the second one redirects to House of Burgundy. It should be named Royal House of Burgundy, so there are no confusions with Burgundy itself.
 * 2) House of Aviz - The name of the House of Aviz comes from its first king John, Grand Master of the Order of Aviz, a natural son of Peter I of Portugal, one of the last kings of the House of Burgundy. The Dynasty of Aviz (or Joannine Dynasty) ends in 1580 with the death of king Henry I of Portugal and the defeat of Anthony, Prior of Crato at the hands of Philip II of Spain. I think that when the dynasty ended, Anthony continued to claim the throne, as well as his children, so the House of Aviz itself continued (Royal or not) for some years.
 * 3) Portuguese House of Habsburg - The House of Habsburg is a major European royal house, its Portuguese branch is not quite Portuguese as the kings were Spanish and lived in Madrid. However Portugal remained an independent kingdom under Spanish Kings. And so, the 3rd Portuguese Dynasty is the most independent dynasty of its house, as Habsburg was only the name of their family and Philippine Dynasty only reflects the fact that the three kings of Portugal (and Spain) between 1580 and 1640 were all named Philip.

I don't know what to conclude from all this. We have one article about the House/Dynasty of Burgundy and another one about the House/Dynasty of Aviz. The Philippine Dynasty has one article (Portuguese House of Habsburg), different from its house. And we have Bragança (royal house), Duke of Braganza and Duchy of Braganza with House of Braganza redirecting to here. The first should be about the Royal House (1640-today), perhaps with a redirect from Dynasty of Braganza, the second one about the Dukes and Dukedom, and the Duchy is not relevant, perhaps an article for House of Braganza would be better.

Sorry for the size of this comment. If you're confused just ask me again. Thanks. Gameiro 16:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Badr

 * Hi, I copyedited through the whole article. My last edit was to change the structure slightly, into a "Background," "Battle" (with subsections), "Aftermath/Implications," "Modern Cultural References" format.  I hope you find the last change helpful; I'm confident the copyediting made a difference and the introduction is a bit more comprehensive now.  Kaisershatner 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I love your changes. Many thanks! Palm_Dogg 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Music of Minnesota/archive1
If you mean to support music of Minnesota, please make that explicit so there's no ambiguity. If not, please let me know if there's anything you still see as lacking. Tuf-Kat 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gerrymandering
Hi, thanks for your edits to the gerrymandering article. I hope more is in store, as this article still has some room to grow and is in need of more than myself making substantial contributions. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica
Thanks for refining the introduction. It looks much better now. Thanks! Gflores Talk 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address to be Feb. 12th Featured Article!
I just saw that our Gettysburg Address article will be the Featured Article of the Day on Sunday, February 12th. Congratulations! What better way is there to celebrate Abraham Lincoln's birthday?! Here is the announcement.

Bart 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes
Thank you very much for your help with this article. I've nominated it as a FAC and would appreciate your comments at Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Clintonlewinskytimecover.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Clintonlewinskytimecover.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You idiot.
Calling what i did vandalism was pretty cool. thanks. douchebag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.139.169.182 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember NPA; also here's what you did . Kaisershatner 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)