User talk:LukeTH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (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 Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) July 8, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

P.S. Good work on your well-sourced addtions to Hillary Clinton

Contents 1 well done 2 ditto 3 Liberalism 4 American liberalism 5 Liberal pejorative vote 6 Ghostwriters 7 Re: Question about reverting edits 8 Request 9 Editorializing 10 I was glad to get your message. 11 Welcome back 12 A little help 13 Gone for good?

[edit] well done

the hc article was a disaster last time i looked (a few months back). you're really beating it into shape. Derex 07:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ditto

I am relatively new to Wikipedia but I wanted to add that you're doing great work on the HRC article, too. Especially with a subject matter as contentious as this it is vitally important to have sources and stay away from POV and weaseltalk, and you've worked really hard on it. Other than the minor gripe of lots of single edits (which someone else has already mentioned) I have to say I think this is pretty exemplary work. NickBurns 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism

I generally like your work on liberalism etc.; 2 questions:

1. Do you think 20th century writers really belong in classical liberalism? I'd be very hesitant to use that term for anyone later than the period of J.S. Mill.
2. What's the basis for saying Ann Richards is not a liberal? I've pretty much always considered here one. How would you classify her?

Again, I think you've done a bunch of good work here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. Glad to hear that you agree with my remark on classical liberalism. As for Ann Richards: no big deal. I personally find the concept of "American liberalism" very useful in talking about roughly 1940-1980, not very useful for other periods. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American liberalism

Sorry bout the forgetful dis-inclusion of your sentence. I had just reverted to the wrong version. My B, yo. Although the language may need to be toned down just a tad. Thanks for your contribs this place. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on my talk page not my user page if you would like me to see your comments next time. I too wish we could leave the fighting to the bloggers. However, I think it germaine to include the Finklestein bit. It shows a contemporary use of the term "liberal" in a possibly deragatory manner. A topic that would be nice to have in the article, as it is common in the American culture. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that Finklestein's comments are absolutely necessary, but they are just one example or this deragatory use of the term "liberal". It is not necessarily POV to quote someone. And I don't doubt you could find a comment by a liberal running for office calling their opponent "conservative" in a negative way (you did so with Kerry). I think the topic itself (Whether or not the use of the term "liberal" is pergorative in today's American culture) should be covered. Finklestein's quote is a good example of sure a use. Do you not agree with that? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. no, no... I think you are missing the point. The article is about American liberalism. In today's American culture, conservatives have corrupted the term "liberal" into being something that isn't good (unelectable). It does hapen, as much as you might not like to think it does. The Finklestein quote shows the result of such. It doesn't really matter whose quote we use, but an example is helpful. The current usage of "liberal" by conservatives is many time pergorative. To deny that would be ridiculous. That doesn't mean that liberals don't use the term "conservative" in a deragatory manner, but the article is about liberalism, not conservatism, so your trying to NPOV is what might be really cluttering up the article. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I get it, I just happen to think a mention of the contemporary usage of the term "liberal" is germaine to the article. I don't think we need to endorse that usage (in fact to do so would violate NPOV), but to mention that it is used that way is helpful. If someone IRL reads that Finkelstein quote, and was not familiar with American politics and culture, they might think, "What the heck is this guy talking about? I thought liberal meant (insert what he thought it meant)." They might then come to our article and be even more confused when there is no mention of how in the world someone could be "too liberal to be elected". --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal pejorative vote

Sorry, I hope you don't think there was any malice. I gotta go with my gut on that one. I saw that it was changed right after my vote, but I still think it's fairly NPOV. Just so it's out there, I am a conservative, but the truth is that the word liberal is used as a perjorative by conservatives. --Elliskev 20:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really believe that it's pretty NPOV. From your last comment on my talk page I take it that you think it's right-leaning? --Elliskev 20:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from regarding your desire not to have the term 'hijacked' as a slur. To be honest, I try to stay away from that article as it's tough for me to see things from the same perspective as someone coming from the liberal stance. I honestly thought at first that you thought the section was too liberal. It has a lot more to do with perspective than content, sometimes. --Elliskev 20:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Luke, it's about number 20 on my list of articles to try to get back to in a serious way. Which means that with any luck I will get to it in early January. But I do watchlist it, and try to go after anything really egregious. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghostwriters

What's your problem with mentioning the well-documented fact that Clinton uses ghostwriters and then, breaking with tradition in such matters, refuses to credit them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.210.3 (talk • contribs) 3 Dec 2005.

[edit] Re: Question about reverting edits

> Hi, Wasted. How does one revert edits? A vandal on the HRC article has her wearing men's underwear. luketh 05:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Click "history", figure out what was the last good version, click on the date field (such as "18:18, 7 December 2005") for that version in the history list, click "edit this page". You'll see a warning that you're editing an out-of-date revision to the page (which is what you want). Put "rv" and the reason for the rv in the "Edit summary", then do "Save page". Reversion accomplished. (Admins have a much faster way of doing it, but that's not us.) Wasted Time R 12:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi, LukeTH. I was wondering if you would please try and use edit summaries more often, even on talk pages. It helps those of us who are doing RC Patrol and Watchlist Patrol. I know it is easy to forget sometimes, but please, do try. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no problem... just have to remind people sometimes. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editorializing

Agreed. I'll do the homework. :) Or, maybe, I'll just let it go. --Elliskev 00:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I was glad to get your message.

Now that we've got that cleared up, I hope we can work together. Living, as I do, surrounded by arch-conservatives, I've found that the carrot works better than the stick. For example, rather than saying that Conservatism is wrong, I find it much more effective to show that Bush is not a Conservative. Which, of course, he isn't. Rather than arguing that the tax cuts are bad, I argue that the so called tax cuts are really just loans, which will have to be paid back down the road.

I look forward to working with you. Rick Norwood 14:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Good to see ya again. Hope you had a nice holiday. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Married, eh? "Marriage is more than just a word, it's a sentence." ;-) But seriously, I hope you and your new wife have a wonderful marriage, and are blessed with children (if you want them) and happiness (which I'm just going to assume you want). Here's a little champagne for the latest to succumb to the "joys" of marriage. Congratulations go out to you and yours. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little help

Luketh, we were working together on the American Liberalism article some months back. I'm wondering if you can help with something. Some conservatives are trying to hijack the Democratic-Republican Party article, trying to change the name of Jefferson's Party -- the precusor of the Democratic Party -- to "Republican Party." This goes against eighty years of scholarship by historians, who have always called it the "Democratic-Republican Party." Can you help with this? Griot 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone for good?

Where ya been LukeTH? We've been missing ya. You planning on rejoining us anytime soon? See ya. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)