User talk:-asx-

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Contents

[edit] Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ([[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 05:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ([[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 The current date and time is 13 June 2008 T 14:02 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P

[edit] Hello old friend

Essjay nominated me for Admin. Vote me in (or not) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redwolf24 Redwolf24 01:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha! -asx- 05:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI, you posted message on User Page, not discussion page.

You posted a message User:Larryfooter's user page. I think you meant to post it on his discussion page. He seems to be a new user. I just wanted you to know I noticed it and thought you might want to move your comment to his dicussion page. Best, Calicocat 06:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for spotting that. I just moved it to his Talk page. I was still trying to figure things when I posted that! (Still am, actually!) Thanks again, -asx- 18:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for your message ... but ... :)

Hi - and thanks for your message ... and i will make a response to allegations section if the page doesnt get deleted - as i mentioned in the discussion page on the topic, i really dont think it warrants its own entry, but rather should be a footnote to the overall page on the president - but that's just my opinion - it seems to have generated all kinds of discussion - and there is a vote going on now - it looks like the page will in fact stay up and not get merged with the bush page - and if it does stay, then i'll write a response section as soon as i can - again, thanks for your message Larryfooter 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

*your initial message
You make a number of good points on the Impeach Bush page, but I think you are forgetting that this article does not purport to make valid allegations against Bush. The point of the article is to describe a movement (if you can call it that) to impeach Bush. In order to serve this function, it is necessary to state the reasons impeachment proponents give for wanting to impeach Bush. It is not the place of this article to evaluate, prove, or disprove these allegations, but merely to indentify them as part of a scientific exposition of a particular political phenomenon. I think it's a good idea to add a section called "Response to Allegations." It's definitely an appropriate addition, in my opinion. -asx- 04:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (Moved. -asx- 18:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC))

[edit] template:LAME

Template:LAME If you like it, you'd better vote for it. It's close to getting deleted here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:LAME Borisblue 14:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Projects on media and journalism

WikiProject Media

Friday 13 June 2008

Internal template for this project
Active sections
  1. Project Articles
  2. Add articles — Add the WikiProject Media template to talk pages of articles that should be in WikiProject Media
  3. Advertise the project — Tell others about the projects if you think they might enjoy working on the Journalism project or the Media project.
Related project
Templates used in WikiProject Media
  • Banner for talk pages
{{WikiProject Media}}
  • For article placement in appropriate articles
{{TemplateMedia}}
  • Internal to project for project development
{{MediaProjectTemplate}}

I'm working on a couple of projects with some others, This template will take you to them both, you can sign in there if you want to. Both of theese need more editors. These things go kind of slowly, or in fits and starts...I thought you might want to have a look and maybe sign up. See you back at the articles. Cheers, Calicocat 23:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kentucky & Missouri Secession

Kentucky & Missouri both had heavy Southerner sympathies and had "rump" governments that did in fact make declarations of secession. Since each of these "rump" governments were not actually in control of their respective states when the declaration was made, it's generally not considered to be legitimate secession. Sf46 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sf46. Thank you for your response. That's what I understood, too, which is why I am of the opinion that the animated GIF is inaccurate and should be fixed. In its current incarnation, the map makes four statements which contradict other Wikipedia pages, and as far as I can tell, are untrue. Those statements:
— October 31, 1861, Missouri secedes
— November 20, 1861, Kentucky secedes
— November 28, 1861, Missouri joins Confederacy but never under CSA control
— December 10, 1861, Kentucky joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control
This information is so far from the truth that anyone who read it (and didn't know better) would come away with a completely incorrect understanding of what actually happened in those states. While it is true (as you said) that rump governments did secede, they didn't represent or control their states, and had no authority to secede or join the Confederacy. On that basis, I think the map should be corrected.
What do you think?
-asx- (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
From what I've read, the Confederacy may have controlled a few counties in each of these states, and each state did have Confederate Army units. Perhaps for a simple fix for now, a note of "(rump government)" could be added next to each state's secession in each of the articles you talk about. Sf46 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at the animated GIF? All of the articles I've seen appear to be correct, but the animated GIF contains the statements above. If you haven't seen it already, I've included it below. Note you have to wait a minute or so before the timeline advances to October 31, 1861.:
Image:CSA states evolution.gif
-asx- (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The map's creator never responded to my comments about it. I'm going to try his talk page and see if we can't resolve the issue. If not then I'm going to delete it from articles because of the historical misrepresentation. It comes close, but it has problems that should be addressed. Red Harvest (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul article

Hi Mskima, I see you have been aggressively pursuing balance and fairness on the Ron Paul article. The newsletter section has been completely eviscerated and is now nothing but an apologia for Ron Paul. I would like to help restore the integrity of this section, but cannot do it alone. This is one area of Wikipedia that is under sustained attack by POV pushers. You have been one of the few willing to fight the good fight in favor of balance and objectivity. I could contribute to the effort if you are still willing to aim for those goals.

Best regards, -asx- (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi -asx-. The Ron Paul article, the talk page included, has always left a bad taste in my mouth. This is pretty much the pinnacle of that sensation. Everything critical has now been removed. Even the opening sentence of the newsletter section contains apologia. Also, it has been placed under his 2008 campaign, despite being something that was brought up several times, not just during this election.
When I first learned about libertarianism, I thought it was a big joke. Neutering the federal government to give more power to the states in itself is ridiculous, and Ron Paul contributes to the madness by having the worst curriculum of political positions I've ever seen. Everything about it is either unproven or proven to be wrong. He wants to make it easier for schools to discriminate, he voted against renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he wanted at some point deny any sort of federal aid to Iranian students only, wanted unmarried minors to notify their parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, he wanted to "prohibit the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle", he endorses corporal punishment against children and repeal the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest of Americans. He even recently published articles in which he suggests that the Left-wing is waging war against Christmas, that churches should play a role in society, and that he opposes gay marriage. Oh, it goes on and on. He even introduced legalization that would define life as beginning at conception, as well as legalization that would prevent the the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, thus permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like—a bill which he has repeated reintroduced! And there's so much more. He was the sole vote against divesting U.S. federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of Sudan. He wants to pull out of the U.N., disband the NATO, abolish the federal reserve, reinstate the terrible Gold Standard (which, by the way, has been proven by all major economic schools as a terrible system that leads to crippling depressions), believes in New World Order conspiracies... the list just goes on and on and on and on.
And I'm not even an American. I'm Dutch. Still, I feel that I should work on the Ron Paul article to introduce all the criticism that he's been receiving simply because he is an objectively terrible politician who somehow has managed to get a huge amount of support from people who are never able to explain to me why they really support him, other than the fact that they cling on to the demagogic "he supports the constitution". And trust me, I would rather do nothing but edit that article, but unfortunately I just don't have that much time. I'll keep it on my watchlist and check it out once in a while, but I can't guarantee that I'll be able to help out in any significant way. In any case, thanks for letting me know, and I hope that these outrageous edits, which are a deep insult to Wikipedia as a whole, will be reverted soon. —msikma (user, talk) 08:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

thats great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.70.164 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)