User talk:JasonCNJ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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#Succession boxes: Order of precedence, 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)
