User talk:JCO312

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Civil War Reversion

Thanks for reverting Civil War. I was dealing with a vandal, and missed the blanking. As a token of my appreciation:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Due to your tireless efforts in thwarting vandals, I Tlim7882 award you with this Barnstar!

[edit] Capital Punishment - RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Capital Punishment, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] New compromise + comments

How about, instead of changing the first phrase or paragraph (let's call it Mission Impossible 4), we write a section on the roles that each of the three branches have in Death Penalty process?

Also about "imposed by the State", could we possibly change that to "approved by the State" or "used by the State". I believe that imposed is slightly misleading (not that you intetionally want to be).

Another thing: before, you wanted to use "Government", instead of State. I will have to oppose you if you do (but it seems as though you have changed your mind) because "Government" is even more misleading. In certain countries, when you refer to Government (ex: France, Australia, UK or New Zealand) you are actually refering to the equivalent of the "Administration" (in the US) and not the "three branches of Government".

About whether police officers, nurses, etc. are members of, apart of or belong to any branch, I gave the example of France, which does not consider its employees to be apart of any of the three branches, according to one of my teachers, who studied political science in France. Even though France is no longer a rententionist nation, I have very little doubt that even the executioner was not apart of, a member of, or did not belong to the executive branch.

Even though, in the US, police officers, executioners etc. are apart/members of/belong to the executive, you have to concede that their job (the job of executing someone) is done within about an hour (it doesn't take 100 years to kill someone), that's why I believe their role is relatively small, and so is that of the executive (even though most officials involved in the process, in the USA, are apart of the executive: that's my position.

GreatKing 13:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It no longer uses the word "imposed" at all. The current edit says the following,

Capital Punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the State as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses

It would make even less sense to mention the judiciary in that sentence, as no member of the judiciary is involved at all in the actual execution.

As far as France, I have no doubt that the employees we've mentioned, whether they are "considered" members of a branch or not, function exactly in the same way that they do in nearly every other nation, i.e., reporting to one branch, being hired by that branch, paid by that branch, etc. De facto or not, they remain under a particular branch of the government.

The execution process itself takes a compartively short period of time, true, but it's the single most important event in the overall process, and it's what a condemed prisoner spends all that time trying to avoid through appeals. There have also recently been several high profile clemency petitions (including several which were granted) that highlight the importance of that role in the process. Finally, if you want to talk about other countries, in China the judiciary is even less involved than in the U.S., with appeals taking a matter of months and being significantly less elaborate than here.

A section on each branches individual roles would likely be more appropriate on the page for each particular nation. I'd be happy to work on writing such a section, but I don't think it would work well within the confines of the page as it exists.JCO312 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure in this section on the role of each branch, we could write something which encompasses most DP states, something like this:

"In most DP states, the executive grants clemency, pardons and can stay the execution; the legislative makes the DP legal; and the judiciary imposes the death sentence and sometimes stays executions."

Of course, we would have to elaborate a whole lot more, I just summarised what I thought was important. Then we could write in each of the page of each particular nation to be more precise about the exact process, as you suggested.

GreatKing 21:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get that detailed you're going to have to talk about individual jurisdictions, which is fine with me, but obviously doesn't belong in the intro. Within the United States, for instance, the roles vary slightly on the general model you laid out (you left out that the executive is responsible for carrying out the execution). For instance, the clemency power (people are not generally given a pardon from death row) is not always in the hands of the governor, sometimes a board of pardons has the sole responsibility to decide clemency (such as in Texas, where the governor can only grant a 30 day reprieve). If you're interested in writing in more detail about the death penalty in individual places, I'm happy to help, as I have a lot of the research done from work I did in law school. The intro, though, should remain as is. JCO312 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just one thing, you asked me (on my talk page) whether the act of granting clemency or pardoning proves that the executives' is minimal. Well, in my opinion it is, since clemency or pardon is rarely granted, as you have said many times.

GreatKing 11:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I said pardon is rare, clemency, while not something that happens frequently, happens enough to have what I would call a significant impact (recent clemency petitions in Virginia and the mass Illinois clemency process are 2 examples). JCO312 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Punishment Discussion

Since the user I wrote the following about decided to blank his talk page, I am putting this up here, so at least my attempt to deal with the problem is recorded.

I decided against posting this on the discussion page because I didn't want to turn the talk page into a personal argument, but the following is your quote,

"I am afraid to say that you have been hypocritical and narrowminded. You mentioned earlier that you want to hear what others have to say, yet you still unilaterally impose your view in the article because only one person agrees with you."

You changed the article to your position after 4 people said you were wrong, and no one else supported your position. If you're going to admonish me for allegedly being a narrowminded hypocrite you should at least try and practice what you preach. Disagreeing with you does not make me narrowminded, changing what I know to be incorrect (after 7 years of higher education and a law degree) does not make me selfish, and saying that I want to hear the opinions of others (all of whom supported my position) hardly makes me a hypocrite. Calling someone someone narrowminded, selfish, and a hypocrite is not "calling a spade a spade." Even to the extent that it is, it's not kind of talk that has any place in a rationale debate. CoolCeasar was wrong to go after you on a personal level, and it detracted from his credibility. It's a shame that you took the same approach.

I am interested in trying to understand your position, and I asked several question which I wonder about your answers to. As I said on the talk page, I used American procedures as an example. You keep saying that other countries do things differently, so which countries handle capital punishment in the way you've suggested? In which country do judges act as executioners? Would you consider the people who actually carry out the execution to have a "minimal" role? Do you suppose that the people who were granted clemency from various executive authorities over the last 10 years would view that act as "minimal?"

You've taken the position that employees of executive agencies are not members of the executive branch. What distinguishes those people from the persons you would consider members of the executive?

You also said that I avoided answering questions or points that you had. If that's true, please consider re-posting them here so I can try and respond to them. JCO312 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital punishment

Looking again, I can't find the example I thought I saw last night. I probably mistook someone else's comment for yours. I was wrong to suggest that you were uncivil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Requested Move, DP-->CP

Just noticed your requested move. I think Wikicrats (at least some of them) are persnickety about rules. I think you need to add some sort of "tag" at the top of the relevant discussion page, and ask for votes (or opinions) in order for the requested move to be official. I'd do it myself but I'm too uncertain about how WP works to feel comfortable making the needed changes. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-23 10:30 (UTC)

[edit] I dunno

I don't know how to delete the Categories page; I never learned how to use the Categories system. Plus all the links in the United States Attorney would have to be fixed as well. But I agree it should be fixed; that's really confusing to have all those redirects to district court articles. You might want to try the village pump. Good luck! --Coolcaesar 05:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Categories are renamed or deleted at Categories for discussion. Beware: As one of the less-well-traveled sections of the Wikipedia backstage machinery, the denizens of CFD seem to have a whole bunch of undocumented rules and guidelines about how they do things and how they name things. If they do agree upon a deletion or renaming, there is usually someone there with a bot that can do wholesale editing of categorized articles. ^BlankVerse 05:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, there are editors who seem determined to create articles on all the minutia and trivialities in the world, so even if the category got deleted, the articles that would have gone into the category will still end up being created. For example, I just found an article on a car dealership, which will probably survive if it was nominated at Articles for deletion, so I plan to ignore it except to copy-edit it, eliminate any fluff, and get rid of any copyright violations in the article. ^BlankVerse 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can believe it, just 23 minutes after I wrote the above, an anon IP nominated Caliber Motors for deletion. Just out of curiosity, I did an rDNS lookup--it's a dial-up POP for AT&T in Gardena, California, and the nomination is the only edits from that IP. ^BlankVerse 13:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said that "it takes at least a half-dozen individuals that are more even-tempered to" counter any editor with an agenda outside of the Wikipedia goals. User:Ericsaindon2 is a good example of that. Look at how much of everybody's time he has wasted on all the talk pages, on article reverts, and now his Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2, yet he still persists in his edit wars. What amazes me is some of his more recent illadvised actions, such as editing the evidence of his misbehavior (sockpuppetry) that was added by one of the arbitrators on his RFAR. What was he thinking--did he think nobody would notice that edit? Instead, it got him blocked from editing for a month, although he blatantly ignored the block by using more sockpuppets and IPs. ^BlankVerse 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Estate context

Yes, I do understand your point of using mansion instead of estate. That would definately work better. I do understnd how Anaheim Hills in the Anaheim Demographic article could come across as POV, and I am not sure that it belongs in the article. I was just pointing out the fact that Anaheim Hills has 3x the median income, and a different racial makeup than the city, and made a notation of that, however, it may come across as POV, and it can be removed. Ericsaindon2 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engrish

Thanks. Vapour

Opps, you reverted my edit. Hmmm. The guideline state that one should not revert or delet edit on the basis of spelling or grammer. Well, next time, I will add comment for each of my edit. Vapour

[edit] AFD process

Hey there, I just found a mildly out of place AFD notice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her! Girl vs Pig. I think you were trying to add Mario Cisternas to the large list of AFDs for today. Step 3 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion will have the link you need to edit to add it in. Cheers! :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was lost as far as how to proceed, and appreciate your help. JCO312 15:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means. Any way I can more people involved in the deletion process, the better. You might want to orient yourself with WP:CSD, WP:NN and WP:NOT. They should give you a better idea of how things are deleted and why. In the case of Mario Cisternas, I believe this article qualifies for speedy deletion as per CSD A7. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States general elections, 2006

On United States general elections, 2006 you deleted some vandalism, however you should have reverted the edit that inserted the vandalism into the page because the vandal deleted a large section of text and added their vandalism in its place. So simply deleting what the vandal wrote would have the net effect of deleting the good paragraph that was there before the vandal came around. To avoid this check the history of the page when you see vandalism, and revert the page to the last good version. Happy editing. Qutezuce 21:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

I guess we both don't have enough to do in the afternoon. Which page was it that we both reverted? --Coemgenus 21:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Glad to see we're on the same page - literally.--Coemgenus 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince quotes

I demand that my Prince quotes be restored. This wasn't a test. Thanks. --81.242.231.140 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Sarah Brightman

I reverted the edit in which you removed the statement that Lloyd Webber wrote the role of Christine for Sarah Brightman. In the Time Magazine article from the footnote, it is stated:

Lloyd Webber composed the role of Christine with his wife Sarah Brightman's crystalline voice and fragile Pre-Raphaelite looks in mind. Crystallina 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, ok, must have missed that one. Looked back at the past edit and you're right. Crystallina 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medcom

Sounds good. Lets get started then. "I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, but my interest here is in dispute resolution, not in seeing a particular result on this article... As such, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to lay out my own personal view on what should happen..." Something to consider: its often fair to state your views upfront. Doing so shows that you are forthright with your views (if you have them). Many choose to simply state their ambiguity, which if true is a rather preferable aspect than someone who holds some bias but doesnt wish to reveal it. As you seem clear on the distinction between the content and the role of mediation, Im more than happy to have you mediate. -Ste|vertigo 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway JCO312. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Best of luck resolving your dispute. JCO312 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AV tool

Ah, glad to see you still use it. Sorry, I accidentially moved my monobook file. I'll add it back, let me know if it works. --Tlim7882 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Might take a few minutes, having some difficulties. --Tlim7882 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, should be up now. Let me know. --Tlim7882 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll talk a look and see what I can find out... --Tlim7882 10:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Still seems to be working for me. Try messing with it a bit more, and see what happens. Once in awhile, Anti Vandal Bot will get to the article before you press revert, or the page history will not update right away due tos erver delay. Let me know --Tlim7882 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1947 President Succession Act

This Act is confusing. The 25th Amendment say the President NOT an Acting President can nominate a vice-president. Yet the 1947 Act, says only the Vice President can succeeded to the Presidency (the office). According to the 1947 Act, the USA could go a full 4 years without a President & Vice President. GoodDay 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So from January 3-4, 2007 (had Bush & Cheney died/resigned), Haster/Stevens/Rice (one of these 3) would have only become Acting President. Then at Noon EST January 4th, 2007, Pelosi would've become Acting President. Then Pelosi could've nominated herself for VP? GoodDay 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess CNN got it wrong, they've been saying Speaker Pelosi is 2nd in line to the Presidency. She isn't, she's only 2nd in line to the presidential powers & duties. GoodDay 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to converse with user 'Newyorkbrad'. He says the Vice President isn't the only officer who can assumes the Presidency (the office). He says the Speaker or president pro temp or Secy of State etc, would become President (assume the office) & complete the Presidential term. I too (like Nyb), figured the Presidency couldn't be vacant. GoodDay 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for clarification

Hello, there. Just wanted to thank you, for the edits on Acting President of the United States & particularily Presidential Succession Act. Until recently (as you know), I mistakenly thought that officials (below the VP) in the succession line, could succeed to the Presidency (the office), instead of only the Presidential powers & duties. These edits to the 2 articles, have removed my previous conceptions of conflict in both articles. I thank you. GoodDay 21:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I, Robot

Have you seen this request for adminship discussion? It's actually pretty interesting - it's turned into a discussion about the nature of robots versus humans, and other sociological ideas. Coemgenus 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it, but it was quite interesting. I posted a support with my thoughts. JCO312 02:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A warning you gave earlier..

hi! Earlier today you issued a third level warning to User talk:208.67.143.4.. Just thought you should know that he vandalized another article, Anybody Killa. Figured you should know. Burquelo 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

I see you are doing some good work on articles of interest to me (the judiciary and US political law and organization). Have you looked into Wikipedia:WikiProject Law? One of my long overdue projects is to see that an article is created for every US district court that lists all sitting and former judges of the court, but I never seem to get beyond working on circuit courts. This article was one of my attempts to make the courts more interesting to readers. Well, while I am not succeeding in doing much to improve these areas of Wikipedia, I am glad to find others, such as you, who are toiling away at it. Cheers, NoSeptember 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, JCO312! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. froth^{T C} 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from RyJones

Thanks for the tip on reverting edits! Ry Jones 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Marigny

Be careful. You copy/pasted all the content from your reference straight into the Wikipedia article. Copy/paste jobs are 99% of the time copyright infringement, and a more zealous Wikipedian would have tagged your article a {{copyvio}}. You had best go back and re-write it, paraphrasing your source material.71.166.82.192 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm fairly confident that the material is not copyrighted under French law, and even if it was, it's been credited in the references section. If you think that more should be done, please let me know. JCO312 01:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surveys

By custom, all discussions of surveys and polling should start with citing Polling is evil. That done, let's go on to say that polls and surveys are not binding. Wikipedia:Straw polls. They are simply a test of whether there is a consensus for a proposal. So long as unregistered users are participating in good faith, and are not sock puppets, then they have the same ability to share their viewpoints as other editors. Other editors, including the editor who closes the survey (if that's done), may choose to discount the opinions of unregistered users, as is done in AfDs.

• Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette

If there was a clear consensus for a recent move then a new proposal to move the article back to the old title may be viewed as failuure to respect the consensus, especially if the user making the proposal was involved in the previous discussion. WP:CON. Previous decisions are not binding on current editors, but repeatedly making the same unsuccess proposal could be disruptive. -Will Beback · † · 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Columbia University Mock Trial

Hello, JC0312. An anonymous visitor to the Columbia University Mock Trial page removed the PROD tag and said, "this entry should NOT be deleted because CUMT is not a "club," but rather a nationally-ranked competitive team, such as the Florida Gators, who have an extensive page."

In response, I have started the traditional AfD process. I hope you will be able to take the time and comment on the AfD Discussion. Thanks. JasonCNJ 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Cal

Hey, I wonder if you might take a look at this article on Calvin Coolidge. I've reworked it substantially, and I want to see if there's anything you think it lacks. Hope things are going well. Thanks! Coemgenus 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes, adding a couple of internal links, and moving a comma or two. I'm only about 2/3rds of the way through. I'll get to the last bit after the football games are done. It's very well written, and incredibly well cited. My only substantive comment is about the "Silent Cal" section, which seems to rely too heavily on relaying humorous conversations, beyond what is necessary to give context to the moniker.

Things are well, hope the same is true with you. Cheers, JCO312 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You work quickly. Thanks for the comments. The "Silent Cal" part is a mix of the old article's content and my own additions, and you're right that it doesn't read too well. I'll work on it during the week. Thanks for your edits. Coemgenus 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this anonymous edit [1] very contructive. Coemgenus 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Coolidge's obsession with cupcakes is well known in certain circles. JCO312 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

Please see WP:MOS#Quotation_marks. This house stylistic convention in Wikipedia is well-established and applies regardless of national varieties of English. Cheers. Jonathunder 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am an American, too, and outside Wikipedia I probably punctuate just like you do. Having been around here awhile, I can tell you with confidence the practice here is punctuate just like in the link I gave, regardless of whether the article is about someone from the United States or not. What goes in the quotes is *exactly* what is being quoted, nothing more. If the punctuation was not in the original, we don't put it in the quote. This more accurately preserves the original, which is why this style, often called the "logical style", is uniformly accepted here as the house style. Hope this helps. Jonathunder 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, suppose I were a lawyer (I am not) and asked to apply standard analytical skills to see which of two rules applied. One rule concerns very specific, minute details about placement of punctuation in a sentence. The other is a general rule about which varities of English should be applied to an article. Both claim to be guidelines for all Wikipedia editors. Which rule governs in cases where there is conflict: the general or the specific? Jonathunder 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The logical style of punctuation really is well-established around here. Just take a look around at some articles in the American English style. Punctuation as in the original is pretty uniform. Jonathunder 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AACP

Could you please take another look at AACP? I tried to improve the page. --Eastmain 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential line of succession

Thanks for fixing my edit. I misread the law note, I thought they added both Secretaries, but since SecVA has been around since 1989, he was already on the list. Thx. — MrDolomite | Talk 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. Leon Higginbotham Jr.

Looks pretty good so far to me. I added in a comment into the template with suggestions on what to do next.--Wizardman 05:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A thanks and a comment

"Please consider using a spell check program for your edits. In addition to some of the problems relating to Marbury, there are spelling errors in your edits to the Louisiana Purchase entry. Additionally, some of your edits violate WP:NPOV, for example, in Proclamation of Neutrality, it's inappropriate to write that Madison "caved" to Jefferson, or that the proclamation set a "proud precedent" for future U.S. administrations. Cheers, JCO312 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malplaquet"

First of all thank you for taking the time to glance over my latest submissions. I am always flattered that someone would take the time to give them a look. As to the subject of my spelling, I couldn't agree with you more. Spelling has always been my bête noire, and despite the care tired eyes often overlook that which may be quickly spotted by other. Though I have looked I've not be able to find a spell checker on this site. Does it have one? If so, how does one access it? If not, where can I find one for use on Wiki?

Now, as to the subject of potential WP:NPOV. Surely the words I chose must be a venial sin indeed.

It is a point in fact that Madison did, in fact, "cave" to Jefferson's constant exhortations (dare I say "nagging"?). Is the word "cave" conjecturable? Frankly, I don't believe it is. Given the situtation, Madison did not "accede", or "comply", or "concur", or "concede" to Jefferson's insistent letters, he caved; he knuckled under; he threw in the towel. By his own words he says took up his pen only with the greatest reluctance. The Founding Fathers were not gods, they were men. And their being featured, or even mentioned, in an encyclopedic article does not make them less so. Therefore, I stand by my use of the word "cave".

As to the term "proud precedent", this, too, I find puzzling: Why, it was a precendent, since it had never been done before. And it was a proud moment, because for the first time since its founding, the United States of America made its own, independent declaration of a self-determined policy; not unlike an infant taking its first steps, or a young bird that has learned to fly. I don't think either of these, or the term employed, could be chalked up to vanity. Regards,Malplaquet 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spelling and POV

Thanks for the quick reply, and yes, please send me the Foxfire spell checker, and/or info on a spellchecker program here on Wiki. I -- and future readers -- would be most grateful! (grin)

As re: the words and phrase in question, i.e. "caved", et. al. IMHO at this point the game isn't worth the candle. We have a situtation where both sides have valid points; fortunately here on Wiki we have the freedom to step in and change the words in question. A statement I write with no rancor whatsoever.

Though I can't resist pointing out a line I came across not too long ago re: Boris Godunov. I think it make you grin. Apparently this particular line was lifted whole cloth from the 1911 Enc. Brit. It reads (underline mine):

"In 1571 Godunov strengthened his position at court by his marriage to Maria, the daughter of Ivan's abominable favorite Malyuta Skuratov."

Abominable?? Ah, me, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Regards,Malplaquet 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John L. Fugh

Hi, I noticed you edited John L. Fugh with the edit summary ‘doing some wikifying, trying to prevent total copyright violation’. I’d like to remind you that altering a copyrighted work makes the result a derivative work and if the original work was not under a free licence, then, unless the original’s copyright holder grants such permission, neither is the derivative. The only way to avoid a copyvio is to remove the copyrighted material, even if it has been altered. —xyzzy_n 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

US copyright law does not protect facts, but it does protect creative expression, which means not only the actual verbiage but also the higher structure of the work. It is acceptable to read facts in a copyrighted work and write about them, but not if you copy the work—even if some words are changed. Effectively, the best approach is to keep in mind only the facts and then write something from scratch; modifying a copyrighted text until it’s not recognisable is not an acceptable method (especially when we have a revision history that shows the process step by step). —xyzzy_n 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tri-Cities

In case that trivia question from the other day is still running around in your head, the Tri-Cities and the Quad Cities are one and the same. Coemgenus 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it's no wonder they moved to Atlanta...JCO312 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. GA nomination on hold

The article is currently on hold, see its talk page for suggestions that should be fixed before I'll pass it. --Nehrams2020 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job getting those done so quickly. Consider taking it to peer review and FAC if you have the time. Let me know if it passes and keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 03:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message on Supreme Court Infobox. I was attempting to put in the periods which the case had occurred.. it'd be good if that page link was in the template help.

Whilding87 07:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bot

I stopped a while ago so you don't need to leave anything else, I guess I am not allowed to use bots and it was my first bot so it was kind of crappy. Sorry the grammer in this message also sucks because I am typing fast so that I can leave this message on other pages as well. --eskimospy^(talk) 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um. Your last edit with the bot was 10 minutes before you left this message.[2] JCO312 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnes

This is just a little note, but thanks for the edit on the first paragraph of the Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. article. I know Wikipedia articles don't "belong" to the person who starts them, but it is a bit gratifying to see that someone actually reads them. Thanks again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lemonsawdust (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AV tool

I'll look into it. When you say it's stopped working, do you mean the links disappeared, or do you mean they don't function anymore? Thanks for your time --Tlim7882 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calvin Coolidge...

...will be featured on the main page on the 28th of this month. Coemgenus 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My congratulations. Well deserved after all the work you put in. JCO312 17:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing Silent Cal's stern face on the fromt page that day. Coemgenus 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan citations

Hi, and thanks for contacting me. First off, I think I speak for everyone when I say that I would love it if you could help out with the citations. I too have a lot of Reagan bios around the house, and have been looking thorugh them for some citations.

I think that what you meant when you said "Have you considered changing the citations so that sources that are cited repeatedly are given a reference name and then only listed once in the reference section?" you were talking about the book citations. Well, for some of the books, that is a good idea, and I will work on that, but when it comes to book references, it's all about the page numbers. You could only give the book the same reference name if the page number is the same, which, now that I look, many are, so it is a good idea. I thank you for your input, and look forward to working with you in the future! --Happyme22 22:45, 23 May 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:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Bartender

I do realize that it is a T-Pain song, but Akon is featured on it so why should it not be consider one of his number one singles? If you still feel you should remove Bartender, then you might as well remove "Moonshine" & "The Sweet Escape" as well because Akon is a featured artist on these as well.

Taker_1192 15:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What if we were to create the same chart as before, but instead write something like:

"Bartender" by T-Pain

or

"The Sweet Escape" by Gwen Stefani I think this is a reasonable compromise. Let me know what you think of this idea.

Taker_1192 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaker of the House

Since the user with whom I had this conversation decided to delete my responses from his talk page, I am including them here so that the discussion makes some semblance of sense.

I have re-added the picture of the Speaker. The fact that you have a conflict regarding the picture of the Vice President is not a reason to remove similar pictures from other pages (I agree with you that his picture should absolutely appear on that page). In fact, doing so is a violation of WP:POINT. Cheers, JCO312 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't alert me about things that happened a long time ago. In fact you are wrong I don't have a problem with the Vice President's page. We had a consensus to remove the picture and I wish you would state why you think it should be readded. Use the talk page. Don't go about this the way you are.--Southern Texas 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Last week is hardly "a long time ago." There was no consensus to remove the picture on the Speakers page. There was one person who said it should be put in the history. Your stated rationale for removing the picture of Pelosi was "If we can't have a picture of Cheney in Vice President of the United States then this picture should go as well." That is why I posted the suggestion that you read WP:POINT. That's why I went about it the way I did. I intend to add the picture to Pelosi again, unless a consensus exists for it being removed. The argument "This is a page about the office, not the person" is absurd. Should we make no mention of the current officeholder, since, according to your logic, it's not a page about that person? Why is the image so unacceptable if the text is allowed? JCO312 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Really whats the point of listing a picture twice. My first rationale was wrong but it changed and now I know I am right. Leave it removed. Why do you insist on keeping it.--Southern Texas 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it offers an image of the current officeholder, something that is 1) informative, 2) absolutely relevant to the article. Please don't come at me like I've done something way over the top by suggesting that you read up on policy, and then admit that you were violating it. Your assertion that "now I know I'm right" is not how this works. The image was there, you removed it without any sort of consensus, so I put it back. Instead of engaging in a revert war, it would be incumbent on you to discuss it on the appropriate page. You have not done so, even now, and continue to simply revert. JCO312 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that everyone who has posted on the talk page says that it should be included in the beginning. The only question is whether it should be in the lede or in the history. You are now ignoring the consensus that exists. Please stop doing that. JCO312 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the President pro tempore of the United States Senate page? Robert Byrd's image is right at the top. Why is that inappropriate exactly? Should we remove Henry Clays image from the Speakers page because it's included twice? These people are significant to the article beyond simply the fact that they were the officeholder, they are either significant office holders or the current officeholder, and that is absolutely grounds for them to be there.JCO312 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

President pro tempore of the United States Senate doesn't have a list like Speaker of the House with images. Calm down--Southern Texas 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am calm. It bothers me, however, that you 1) accused me of failing to adhere to the process when, in fact, I had posted to the talk page, something you have not done, 2) denied that you had reverted for an improper reason and essentially chastised me for bringing it up at all. 3 editors have posted on the talk page, and all agreed that the picture should be included in addition to the list. I don't know why you insist on removing it without participating in that process, but if I came across as being anything less than calm, I would suggest that your approach may have triggered that. Cheers, JCO312 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, you did write to the talk page, just not in the section about the picture. What you said there was "As for the picture I think its obvious were I stand on that." As far as I can tell, you are the only person who thinks the picture should only be on the page once. I'm not sure why you keep calling that a consensus. JCO312 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page. My point has already been made. You seem to be the only one with a problem, address the problem instead of readding the image which has not been there for some time now.--Southern Texas 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the "only one who has a problem with it." JasonCNJ disagreed with you as well. Cmprince disagrees with you that the picture should only appear in the bottom section. So, that begs the question, if only the 4 of us have discussed it, and you're the only one who thinks it should only be in the list, where is the consensus? JCO312 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The image has not been there for about a week and has been edited without being put back. I think that can be called a consensus.--Southern Texas 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people chose not to engage you in an edit war is not evidence of a consensus. You are ignoring the discussion that took place. JCO312 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Consensus "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon." JCO312 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets go to the talk page and discuss then.--Southern Texas 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page so lets discuss.--Southern Texas 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: SCOTUS template

The "Court membership" section automatically formats everything, including the addition of wikilinks. The "Case opinions" doesn't ever use wikilinks; it could do so automatically, but it would greatly increase the size of the template. And then there would be redundant links in the infobox. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank for the welcome back. I actually think that would be a good idea. I would see no problem with the picture being in the lead if this was done. But I think that the picture I put in the body should be removed if this was done. This would probably end the dispute. Also if I was ever incivil to you, I apologize. I went a little crazy on that day.--Southern Texas 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acting VP

Response to your comments now on my talk page. Cheers. Unschool 04:05, 11 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 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaganomics

Hi there. Thank you for contacting me and getting my thoughts on you proposed alterations to the Reaganomics section of the Ronald Reagan page. After reading what you wrote, I think it sounds more neutral, which is good, but there are some things I would liek to draw attention to:

• the section seems longer - I don't know if it is or not, but it seems to be.
• the second sentence: "Reagan focused on supply-side economics, seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts." sounds confusing. Reagan did "focus" on supply side, but the wording is confusing. How about: "he implemented policies similar to those of supply side economics."
• the national debt percentages, in my opinion, aren't necessary, because we have an actual dollar amount already there. Adding percentages might confuse readers, or it might not, but if they are added it would have to be with the sentences dealing with national debt.
• the statement dealing with Reagan rolling back 60s and 70s liberal policies was already in the article before I even joined Wikipedia, so after I gave the Ronald Reagan article a "facelift" I decided to keep that statement, even without a citation. If you can find one - great, but if not I guess you can remove it.

I also wanted to get our opinion on what (if anything) should be removed from the section, for it's the longest sub-section in the article and that brings down its chances of becoming a FA. There's the quotes by Don Regan and Martin Fieldstein dealing with Pres. Reagan. It could be argued that they should stay because the article is about Ronald Reagan, and they deal specifically with Ronald Reagan. I think the wrap-up paragraph at the end should stay because that wraps up Reaganomics. What do you think, because the kb count is high, and there is already an article dealing with Reaganomics? Some stuff has got to go. Best, Happyme22 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well let me say that your version is the best we've got, so I'm going to use a lot of it in the section, and probably remove the quotes and add them into the Reaganomics article. Thanks for your help, and I hope to work with you again in the future! Best, Happyme22 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

JCO, since I referenced one of your comments in my current RFA, I felt that it was only fair that I inform you that I did so.Balloonman 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have given my support for your RfA. Good luck! Cheers, JCO312 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan FAC

Can I interest you in registering a support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan? This one's going very well. Best, Happyme22 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for registering a 'support.' Best, Happyme22 18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hancock the Superb

I've been making a lot of edits to Winfield Scott Hancock. I wonder if you might take a look at it and let me know what you think of it. I want to submit it for FA, but I feel there's something lacking. Coemgenus 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow at lunch. JCO312 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty good. I think that there are some phrases that read to much as prose. In the Joining the Army of the Potomac section for example phrases such as "horrific fighting," "dramatic entrance," "disastrous attack" seem to me to be less a presentation of facts and more an attempt to dramatise the events. Also, there are some confusing sentences, for example from the Command in the East and political ambitions section, "All the while Hancock was stationed in New York, he did his best to keep his political ambitions a going concern." It could be me, but I don't know what "a going concern" means. I'll look more and give you additional comments. JCO312 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the prose is a bit florid, and that's partly my fault. I thought "a going concern" was ok, but maybe I'll just change it to "alive". Thanks for your review. I think it still needs a little work before getting sent to FAC, especially if the Reagan article's candidacy is any judge. Those people are tough! Coemgenus 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"A going concern" is probably just a phrase I'm not super familiar with, so I wouldn't worry about it. The Reagan article's FA page is just absurd. There will not be the same concerns here. A lot of the opposition is just people who don't like Reagan, I suspect the same difficulty would be encountered if Clinton or George W. were nominated for FA. A shame, frankly. JCO312 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame abour Reagan. Fortunately, Hancock does not inspire the strong feelings today that he may have inspired in 1880. It's tough to write about anyone so recent and so influential as Reagan. I guess there will be extremists on both sides of that debate for as long as we live. Thanks again. Coemgenus 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for FA, shoudl you care to leave a comment. Coemgenus 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq Resolution

I've seen some of your insight on other talk pages, and I'd like your opinion about whether or not the Iraq Resolution#Supremacy Clause section is accurate based on your knowledge and whether or not you know about any better sources. I've done my best as a layman to patch it together. Isaac Pankonin 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is actually how the section was in the past, but I've had a hard time finding a source that connects the last in time rule to the Iraq Resolution. An editor is insisting on strict adherance to WP:SYN. I had specifically listed Whitney v. Robertson and Reid v. Covert, but I had to take it out. My theory is that anybody who really knows about law dismisses this as a fringe argument and doesn't take time to write about it. Isaac Pankonin 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you said that that editor offered to not be overly strict, as the initial section seemed reasonable, but then you stuck to policy to get certain other information removed. As a result that editor then said, OK if you want to apply policy we do that equally and only then he was "insisting on strict adherance to WP:SYN:" i.e. the Supremacy thingy. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot and references

Thanks, this is becasue References was a level 3 heading when it should be (SB assumes) level 2. Rich Farmbrough, 18:08 12 September 2007 (GMT).

[edit] FYI

Answered on my talk page. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doe v. Bush

I'd like to make an article for Doe v. Bush. Is there a district court ruling infobox that you know of? Isaac Pankonin 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look! I decided not to bother with an infobox. Isaac Pankonin 10:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you could somehow find the Federal Reporter citation for this I'd be much obliged. Isaac Pankonin 06:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks! Isaac Pankonin 04:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

It appears that 205.202.33.138 has removed the entire section History from Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It appears to be vandalism, as no reason is given, and an absurd replacement is made. A subsequent edit removed the added entry, but omitted the original text. --algocu 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Reagan FAC

Hey there JCO. You helped out with the Ronald Reagan article during it's FAC. I don't know if you have an interest in First Lady Nancy Reagan, but I've nominated her for FAC here, and was wondering if you could take. Thanks and good luck, Happyme22 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan's role in the Cold War

I don't know if you are interested, but I could use any of your comments here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed around some wording in the proposed text at my sandbox; feel free to take a look and comment on the talk page there or on the Reagan discussion page. The discussion is becoming overshaddowed by other discussions (and users - namely Arcayne - who only seems to want to include negative views of Reagan), and I am trying to keep it alive. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)