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)

[edit] NJ Thanks You

I've come across several of your edits during my review of New Jersey pages; specifically, I saw your comments preventing vandalism on the Jon Corzine page and your corrections to EricL on the List of New Jersey Governors page. Just wanted to stop by and say "Thanks" for all the work you've done. Several NJ articles are accurate because of your contributions. JasonCNJ 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind words, even if you're not authorized to speak on behalf of the entire state. I've realized that taking the time to explain an issue, every now an then, can go a long way to helping make Wikipedia better for everyone involved. Alansohn 20:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Stevens internet stuff

In actual fact, I agree with you: that info, as well as info on other critcism of Stevens, belongs in the main article. A few weeks back, someone took it upon himself to remove all criticism to a separate article, which I and another editor are in disagreement about. Perhaps you might like to weigh in at Talk:Ted Stevens#Ethics Issues on Biography Pages of Politicians. Regards. --Yksin 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Caggiano

Hi JasonCNJ, at your young age it is apparent while you live across the river from NJ, you don't know how corrupt this State is.

If you had read my web page, thomascaggiano.com, you would find out I am now working with the Deputy Director of the Attorney General of the United States of America only two positions from the President of the United States of America, with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, the DOJ's Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section and the FBI Director. What is on the web page includes letters from our Federal Senator, Congressman, State Senate Leader, our District's State's Senator, Assemblyman, Assemblywoman, Stanhope Environmental Commission, prior Land Use Board, seventeen propert owners and the smoking guns of massive corruptin. The web is being used by hundreds of people and we have have other Judges indicted, and had the FBI supervisor removed, the Chief of the Special Prosecution Branch for the Department of Criminal Justice and the independent Govt Record Council has ordered the Office of the Attorney General to appear before it as it has more then a thousand pages of evidence. Read and listen to the audio files on the web site as it will be getting many more sound tracks and transcripts. In fact there is muntiny going on in Trenton as the Assignment officers are willfully disobeying orders from corrupt Cabinet level officials. I and others have already testified in court for 4.5 hours. So stay tuned to thomascaggiano.com and find out reality as dozens upon dozens of individuals are under massive criminal investigations.

Go ahead and report that I am entering the truth.... If it were untrue I would be sued for libel. So much for your understanding of publication rights guaranteed me by the New Jersey Constitution. Read it. The Associated Press, Star Ledger, Daily Record and other newspapers use my web page as a source as we already shut down the Government Record Council in Jun 2006 and had laws changed. Rather then complain, we are getting rid of hundreds of corrupt officials and changing laws too to benefit the citizens in our grass roots cause...

Tom Caggiano

I don't quite know where to begin, Tom. First, please place your comments on my talk page under an appropriate header. Do not place them at the top of the talk page. Thanks. Second, I have worked and do work in New Jersey politics, I have lived through the great term of Governor Florio, lived through the horror of Governor Whitman, stayed up all night in 1997 for then Mayor McGreevey's near-win, watched McGreevey rise, watched Sharpe James suffer his closest challenge, watched McGreevey fall, lived through the Acting Governorships of two Senate Presidents, and helped to elect our current Governor. While I may be young, I am quite aware of the state of corruption in New Jersey politics...from what I remember and from the history I have learned. I need no lessons in the state of corruption in New Jersey...and, in any event, tomcaggiano.com is not reputable enough to teach me much of anything.
My only interaction with you was to remove an unsourced, outrageous claim on the page of Chief Justice Stuart Rabner to wit:
...Stuart Rabner will be desposed and subpoenaed to the municipal court and forced to testify under oath; thereafter criminal charges will be filed against Sturat Rabner in Mercer County's Criminal Court on South Broad St, Trenton, for criminal conduct while he was the New Jersey Attorney General.
Your source for that material was...yourself. However, Wikipedia policy clearly prohibits your edit as it constituted original research. Additionally Wikipedia policy on bios of living persons requires that "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." Your edit was clearly "unsourced or poorly sourced" about a "living person" and policy required that I remove it immediately. I did so.
I don't know who the "Deputy Director of the Attorney General of the United States" is. I assume, from the DOJ Organizational Chart, you mean the "Deputy Attorney General" of the United States. I find it incredibly hard to believe that you are working directly with the DAG but I have no way of knowing for sure. Anyway, I have no opinion on your dispute with Stanhope and I really do not care about your rantings on corruption. My point is that you cannot add outrageous material to the Wikipedia biography of the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court without submitting proper sources that can be verified. If you attempt to do so, I will revert you.
Personally, I do not think the Chief Justice will be summonded to a municipal court, forced to testify, and then criminally charged in Mercer County Superior Court. Personally, without knowing the details of your Stanhope situation, I think that idea is absurd and that you are crazy for submitting those facts as true. Here's a man who has been involved in two confirmation hearings in less than a year, the former head of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey, who was supported in his rise by the U.S. Attorney himself and the Governor.....I suppose in the realm of possibility he could be "corrupt" during his brief and exhalted tenure as NJAG but I doubt it. Regardless, if you feel those things did happen/are going to happen, then get a reputable reporter to write about them in a news story and post a neutral story and link to that report. Do not use your website as a "source" for your own original research that strains the limits of reason.
JasonCNJ 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)




[edit] Inherent contempt

Jason:

You added to the Statutory Proceedings section of the inherent contempt page the following: "the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker--e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt--says it is; the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only--and is obligated to--execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation;"

With all due respect, The reason I deleted this post from the section is because it is not neutral.

You are drawing specific conclusions from a subjective interpretation of the Constitution where no such conclusions exist.. In fact, these points are under considerable debate at this time and it is likely they can only be resolved by the courts. To say that the "Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law ..." or "any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation" is simply not true. Each branch of government is tasked with interpreting the law on some level and has since the Nation's inception. That is one reason why the "separation of powers" is not static but in always in flux.

You'll notice that my original posting drew no such conclusions and merely presented the major points of contention between the Executive Branch's "unitary executive" interpretation and those that support a more common interpretation without making any determination as to the legality of either position as your definition has.

If you can revise the section and still maintain the "neutrality" wikipedia requires, please feel free to do so.

Hope this helps to clarify things.

Bowa

[edit] Contempt of Congress and Criticism of George W. Bush

I think your edits to Contempt of Congress as of 07:07, 29 July 2007 would make an excellent addition to Criticism of George W. Bush, if you can also provide a source for the statements. -- Dr.enh 06:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SouthernTexas Interactions

[edit] First Dispute, 31 July

You did violate 3RR, but I won't report you. Lets discuss this on the talk page of the article. I don't know why you want to have a dispute on this, the picture should be removed, its not on any of the other offices. You seem to be the one with a dispute, your hero is already pictured in the article so what's the point of having really?--User:Southern TexasUser talk:Southern Texas 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits, remember that I still can report you. You have no agrument. Give me one good reason why this page should be any different from any of the other officeholder pages. When 24 hours is up, I will remove the picture again. It does not belong and clutters up the page--User:Southern TexasUser talk:Southern Texas 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I still have one revert left, you don't, so everything I said above will go into effect if you revert me again.--User:Southern TexasUser talk:Southern Texas 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I have removed the coloring from your signature since I find it annoying but wikipedia policy prevents me from commenting further on the comment you struck out above. {Comment by JasonCNJ on 31 July 2007}
I am sorry about the way I went about this, I probably could have been more WP:CIVIL about it. I will respect the consensus on the talk page regardless of the outcome. P.S. why is my signature so annoying I just changed it and I like how it stands out.--User talk:Southern Texas 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Dispute, 7 August

I posted the following comment on his talk page:

Violation of 3RR

 Southern Texas,
 We have had our disputes about the Speaker's page and we engaged in an edit war a few days ago. I mentioned to you then that you should watch 3RR. And you even noticed on the talk page your obligations under 3RR on 31 July 2007. Today, you violated Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. To wit:

 You reverted User:JCO312 at 16:21, 6 August 2007 Revert #1;
 and then a second time at 17:19, 6 August 2007 Revert #2;
 and then a third time at 17:31, 6 August 2007 Revert #3;
 and finally you reverted me (your fourth revert to the page within 24 hours) at 18:30, 6 August 2007 Revert #4.

 If you do not revert your own most-recent revert, I will report your activities on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
 JasonCNJ 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In response, SouthernTexas posted:
I will not remove it because you were obviously setting me up for it. We were undergoing discussion and a compromise on the talk page. What you did could be considered trolling. There is still more to do, like replacing the Henry Clay image which I will do, but I will not put up a third picture of Pelosi as well as the same image twice.--User:Southern Texas00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To which I submitted: Once again, I have removed the coloring from your signature line since I find it annoying. I will respond in substance on your talk page. JasonCNJ 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
SouthernTexas undid my response on his page, writing in the edit summary "removing unconstructive bickering." For clarity, my response was:
If you have evidence of "trolling" or me breaking wikipedia policy, please let me know. I had evidence of you doing so and I went directly to you to give you one final chance to fix it yourself to avoid the need for an administrative report. I will now make that report that you have violated 3RR.
JasonCNJ 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
SouthernTexas then undid my comment on his talk page, writing in the edit summary: "obvious wikistalking)"


I just wanted to put all these comments in one place, since he claims to have "retired" and deleted his the contents of his talk page. JasonCNJ 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that SouthernTexas edited one of his earlier comments to strike out a sentence. The stricken out sentence is: What you did could be considered trolling. His original text appears above; the stricken out text is noted in this thread just to keep time/date accurate. JasonCNJ 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a fellow Troll!!!

So you must be the person JCO312 told me about!!! Trolls 'R' Us Balloonman 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I suppose my cover has been blown. I consider myself of the devious, more human-like folk but even I proved to be no match for the investigatory talents of SouthernTexas. Trolls Unite! JasonCNJ 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaker of the House of Representatives

Just thought I'd let you know that I suggested the list be split into its own article and your opinions would help at Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Split of section. Thank you.--Southern Texas 17:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Www.kucinich.us

FYI, I replaced a Criteria for speedy deletion (A7) template--that had been removed by the author--on this article. Frankly I would have put the template on myself if it hadn't already been there, as I don't think associating a site with a public figure is the same as claiming it's notable. --Evil1987 14:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jason, thanks for the note. I've sent the article to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.kucinich.us. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I've speedily deleted it under CSD G4. I'll have a word with the creator. Thanks again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. www.kucinich.us was already protected so that it can't be recreated and now kucinich.us can't be created (assuming I did it right anyway). Thanks for keeping an eye on this, much appreciated. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Corzine

Why did you delete the Controversy section? The great govenor of New Jersey has had more than his fair share of controversy and it is not reflected on the page. Please do not delete factual information that he himself confirms. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYcThUgg (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discharge petitions and discharge resolutions.

This is in response to this edit. First off, the earlier edit definitely improved the article and tightened the style and accuracy (I meant absolute majority, but wrote simple majority not remembering that they aren't the same). However, as for that edit... the problem is that discharge resolution currently redirects to discharge petition. So now, rather than having a clarifying comment, someone looking up discharge resolution would get the impression that it's an alternate term for a discharge petition. This is clearly misleading. So... either the clarification in the discharge petition article should be restored, or an article should be written for discharge resolution, or it should redirect somewhere else and have a section explaining it there. Do you think that there's enough information on discharge resolutions to merit an article? My intuition is no, but you seem to more familiar with that topic than I am. (Speaking of which, any information you have on the discharge petition's early use in the first half of the 20th century would be appreciated. When I researched the issue, I couldn't find much information on that.) SnowFire 04:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with a one-sentence italicized notice at the top of the article explaining that the article in question is about a procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives and distinguished from a similarly named procedure in the U.S. Senate. But I do not think there's enough information for an article on "discharge resolutions" in the Senate -- so I think the redirect should be deleted. If there is an article on Procedures of the U.S. Senate, however, a "discharge resolution" mention could be placed there.
Regarding your second question, I know more details about the rein of Speaker Cannon and how discharge petitions came from his excesses, but I don't know much more about its actual use. Let me know what ya find out - I'd be happy to read about it! If you think I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to write. JasonCNJ 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I might be able to help with this, as I have a couple of books on Congressional procedure around here somewhere; I'll try to take a look during the week. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Neat. The stuff I read was mostly academic analysis of later discharge petition use, and it basically only said "the discharge petition was different before and basically not comparable, so we're ignoring it."
As for discharge resolution... an article like Procedures and terminology of the United States Congress would actually probably be a good idea (akin to Glossary of American football), but I don't think it exists yet. The closest is Category:Terminology of the United States Congress, I suppose. That wouldn't be a bad spot to contain information on discharge resolutions when it exists, I suppose. SnowFire 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Concerning Article I

JasonCNJ, I've taken two semesters of Constitutional Law, and what 35.10.248.238 says on the article about Article I is not even controversial to legal experts. It might be over your head, yet that does not negate the legitimacy of his edits, or the accurate representation of current standard constitutional interpretation which he presents. Have you read any Chemerinsky? I'd recommend him. Judge373 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Albert

Hello Jason, would you check the Albert page's 'Mr Speaker' section? A part of it says Albert could've become President & part of it says Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)