User talk:AlexSuricata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, AlexSuricata, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dweller 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Humanities Ref Desk

I assure you that there was no intention of uncivility, but on rereading, I worded my response harshly. Please see my further post there. I think my reply was influenced by the fact that reading the report seemed to answer the question intuitively, but as I well know, some people find number crunching and statistical analysis more tricky than I do, so I shouldn't have let that affect my reply... even unwittingly. Please accept my apologies. There's an article on hubris (and I think I actually misworded my comment anyway!) that should explain the concept; it would have been appropriate if, as you say, I hadn't made a false assumption about your nationality. Hoist by my own petard - I'm frequently found castigating people (gently) for assuming all Wikipedians are from the USA. I read your comments as an affronted person wondering why his great country wasn't top of the pile. Actually, that might also have contributed to me snappy remarks. Further apologies. --Dweller 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering and explaining the misunderstanding. I shall remove my comment to yours on the Reference Desk (if I can, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and not too sure how these things work). To further explain: I do and can handle statistical information, and had noted the sectors mentioned such as Electoral Process, Civil Liberties etc. My question referred to how these factors have been perceived by the Economist to getting a lower rating in the USA than - as I mention - Canada and Australia, for example, countries that I do also not personally know. This was the jist of my query. Apology accepted, and thank you again for taking the time to address my question. Alex. --AlexSuricata 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: If I remove my comment, yours makes no sense. Hence, I leave it to your discretion, as editor, to remove all of this "run-in" and so make the page cleaner afterwards. Please edit as you wish, gracias.--AlexSuricata 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm happy to leave it there, as a reminder to me to be more gracious. Thank you for your courtesy. --Dweller 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, wish I had the time to detail more on this right now. The greatest difference, by far, is in federation/unitary nature. The US, Canada and Germany are all federations. Every province/state has a sovereign right to exist, and has powers devolved upon them by the constitution, which is superior to the central government, and which the central government cannot remove, except by constitutional amendment. This is especially difficult process. See the US Constitution Art. 5: 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state support is needed. Scotland, Wales and NI only have power because Westminster lets them. That's only power, not sovereignty: which I would say, is the power to grant power. Though the complicating factor with Canada is that not all provinces are equal. Nunavut is only a territory. It is constitutionally inferior to provinces - like Ontario. I think Quebec is different yet again.martianlostinspace 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martian, thanks very much for the info here and on the RD, especially on Canada which is where I was most unsure, for example province and territory difference. I´m a lot clearer now - Great stuff, thanks. --AlexSuricata 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Plantbathroom1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Plantbathroom1.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In from the Cold

Just in case you missed it, Alex, I've given an extended response to your question on Ronald Reagan and the end of the Cold War. Regards, Clio the Muse (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you; I have read it. I have also seen on another question that you may have a book published this year. I enjoy reading your contributions to other questions a lot and would be interested in obtaining your book and reading further and informing myself. Would it be possible to find out an eventual amazon link (etc.) to buy the book? Also, will you be publishing individual answers here in book form? They make excellent reading; I especially enjoy your answers to WW2 history (which interests me a lot, partly due to family involvement) - does this exist already? Thanks again, --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Alas, Alex, for practical, academic and personal reasons, I have to keep my full identity here secret! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, that is quite natural. Either way, I hope to read your book one day. Thank you again for your contributions, --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)