User talk:Ferrylodge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Archives
Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.
[edit] RfC
You are misusing the RfC. RfC on articles are to help settle deadlocked disputes over content. Your RfC is specifically about user conduct. There are specific RfC for users called "Request comment on users". I urge you to please read the directions on WP:RfC carefully and reconsider your recent actions. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Andrew C, this is all about content, isn't it? I believe that the reverted content should be included in the article. Other editors disagree. Why are you characterizing this as a dispute about user conduct? It is about whether the reverted content will be included.Ferrylodge 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re:Question about Advocacy
Sorry, I wasn't able to reply to your message sooner. I have been out of town since Friday and did not have time to leave a wikibreak message. As to your inquiry: We don't have an Advocate or Advocacy Team that deals specifically with what you're describing, as generally all of our Advocates are well versed enough to handle such an issue, so if you place a standard Advocacy request you should be covered. If you hit a snag, however, don't hesitate to contact me again. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US v. Morrison
I see you're interested in keeping US v. Morrison up to date. I think you're doing a great job!
I don't have time to do it, but I think the 2d paragraph of the equal protection section is a bit of a non-sequitur. I tacked on that last section to reconcile how the court's opinions differ between the early opinions and this case with respect to complex remedial legislation under 14:5. In the past, the courts have found this OK (i.e. 18 U.S.C. 241-42; 1983 suits) but here they do not. The key reason is that the private remedy against individual actors was geared toward correcting state action in the first instance, but does not have that effect under VAWA. Maybe you can rewrite the section?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.9.56 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Is this the paragraph that you're objecting to? "The Court responded that the Fourteenth Amendment limits the manner in which Congress may remedy discrimination, and requires that a civil remedy be directed at a State or state actor instead of a private party. The Fourteenth Amendment, said the Court, prohibits only state action – i.e., action by state governments – and not private conduct." How is this a non-sequitur?Ferrylodge 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I responded but on the page for my IP, I don't know how to get it here!
[edit] The Fourteenth and the children of immigrants
Last edit looks good. Sorry if it felt to you like I was following you around, but I didn't want 'anchor baby' to be the primary term of reference, as I think it's non-NPOV.
Thanks for your edits.Rocketfairy 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It looks okay now. Thanks.Ferrylodge 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overly controlling behavior
Could you stop the trivial pretexts for acting as if I need your permission to do anything, and the threats?Jimmuldrow 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jim, I never made any threats. If you want to accuse me of making threats, then please use quotations.Ferrylodge 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
