Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to bring any issues up here, just please keep the page organized. Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
Noted application of standard to Franken page. Again, well done. Looking forward, I will maintain the same standard. plain_regular_ham 16:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll see how long it stays there though LOL Equinox137 16:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have voted for Omaha, Nebraska on the USCOTM. It was selected to be this months's collaboration. You are invited to help to contribute in order to improve Omaha, Nebraska in any way possible.
I noticed you were the one who added the POV tag to the Drudge Report article. There's been some work done on it recently in NPOVing and I thought you might want to take a look. --PTR13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is addictive, yes. By the way, I added a category back; if you believe it doesn't fit in this one either, perhaps a "University shootings" rather than a "School shootings" category would be more appropriate? Other longtime editors at the Kent State shootings article seem to be staying out of the discussion. It's hard (though not impossible) to develop a consensus with just two editors discussing things. Badagnani06:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I generally try to avoid editing politics or hot issues such as this because it's an exercise in futility in the long run, but some of what's in the KS article stuck out at me. It's kind of tough to categorize this when it boils down to it, because KS was a rare event in history. The school shootings category doesn't seem to fit, because what they have there is generally columbine/jonesboro/etc type of incidents and this is more politically related. However it was a school shooting obviously because it happened at a school, so if you believe it belongs there, I'll leave it alone. This happened 36 years ago and it's not going to make a bit of difference on how it's looked at either way. However I strongly disagree with it being "state terrorism". I'm looking at it from an officer's perspective - if I think I see a weapon and aggressive behavior on the suspect, I'm drawing my weapon and he's going down - that simple. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Given that, you'd have to categorize every questionable shoot in American history as "state terrorism" - and the soldiers in this incident weren't even convicted by a compentent court. Equinox13706:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't the one who added "state terrorism" to the article in the first place; I was just going by the definition of those who promulgate the term. Probably a "University shootings" category would be best to avoid confusion (though some institutions of higher learning are colleges, not universities), rather than lumping the university shootings in with the primary and secondary school shootings. Regarding the Guardsmen seeing guns, try to read that article link, because testimony from the Guard themselves following the incident shows that they did not (though some later claimed there might have been a sniper). Nobody seemed to know (or at least they didn't say) exactly who had first fired or given the order to do so. The more you read about this incident, the more complex and incredible the whole situation seems. It's definitely much more complicated than the typical off-the-cuff response by people who only know the basics about what happened. So our work here is important in that regard. Badagnani06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to argue the credibility of your, "...if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD." and have posted a direct argument on the discussion page. -Guest
P.S.--Not bad arguments! You should be a lawyer!
Thanks (I think). My "it's not murder" statement was expanded on far more than just that, though. For it to be "murder" it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court that the offense of murder is committed. Otherwise, it is a killing or a shooting. As I've said before, calling the NGs "murderers" could possibily open up both Wikipedia and individual posters for libel lawsuits in civil court. It has happened before.
Just a note...we are only rivals on the Kent State Massacre page. Also...do you really think that a debate on the Talk Page will open up a lawsuit? (I haven't changed the article itself, but I'll be more careful...) ::Also, a vote is open on WikiProject AntiWar. This should move the debate away from the Kent State talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
do you really think that a debate on the Talk Page will open up a lawsuit? That's not what I said. What I said was referring to the NG as murderers in the article itself could open the poster up to libel lawsuits. It happened once before with that guy who was accused of being involved in the JFK assissination (I can't remember his name at the moment. Not saying they'd win, just saying they have the grounds for it. I check out the vote. Thanks. Equinox13704:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's a problem...the vote has been taken off of the WikiProject Anti-War page. I'll just move it to my talk page.Defender 91113:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Why don't you give your input there? It's still open for comment and many of the comments are just simple delete votes by the "regulars" at the "categories for deletion" area who just vote "thumbs down" on pretty much every category without giving any constructive input, whether they have an understanding of the issues or not. Badagnani09:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the person who created the new supercat "Kent State shootings" only left that one category because if you look inside that category you'll find all the original categories, now subcategories. It's just how the categories system works. Why that editor went ahead and did that without discussing at the Kent State shootings discussion page first, god knows. Badagnani09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.144.146.240 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Quote one Wikipedia policy you think supports your position changes nothing. I have repeatedly explained exactly what the NPOV and accuracy problem is with the statements in that article. You continue to want to push that, regardless of that fact that North Omaha's crime rate is far higher than the rest of the city. You may wish for North Omaha to be a "progressive urban center" with a "rich and diverse culture" but that is not the case - it is not factual.
That's how it works when one is a military ruler and wants to call himself anything he wants. The heads of Haiti were called "President for Life" because that's what they wanted to be called. The Emperor of the Central African Empire called himself that because that was what he wanted to be called. "Dear Leader" is the head of North Korea because that's what he wanted to be called. It's not Wikipedia's place to make a decision one way or the other. And I'm not trying to be argumentative, so there's no need to take an offensive posture in our discussion. You might want to discuss this on the article's Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk)09:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being harsh. However I (probably along with any other former or current military that would see that )consider it very offensive to give this individual a military rank, just because he assigned one to himself. By listing him as such, Wikipedia is taking a position. "Emperor" or "Dear Leader" is one thing - military rank is completely different. And this man didn't even control Somalia - he was just one of many warlords there.
It takes years of work and sacrifice to attain that rank, regardless of whatever country's military an individual might be in. Giap (North Vietnam) was a General. Zhukov (Soviet Russia) was a General. Powell (U.S.) was a General. Aidid was not. Equinox13709:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that Wikipedia was taking a position, the position should not be swindled by emotion but by facts - surely you can see this? One military's opinion of his title is irrelevant to what he called himself and/or what he was known as - even if you and a group of your peers decide this title to be farcical and are affected emotionally by it.
Hi, thanks for your note--but I'm afraid I don't know anything about North Omaha. If the "progressive" adjective seems out of place, I'd say it sounds somewhat POV unless it's generally agreed that this is the case (progressive usually meaning "liberal," "open-minded," politically pluralistic/inclusive) and this aspect is noted in published articles about the neighborhood, etc. I'd say, for example, that Madison, Wisconsin or maybe Shaker Heights, Ohio might be considered "progressive" according to such reasoning. Badagnani04:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, from what you say about it, what's written about this place sounds inaccurate. Why not get some of the regular contributors to the Omaha or Nebraska articles to comment? Badagnani06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead & do that, however I don't know too much Omaha editors that well. Mainly the assistance I need is a more experienced (and neutral) editor than I to explain basicly how Wikipedia works. The creator (again, a newbie) is under the impression that because he created the article, that's it "belongs" to him and he is the sole authority on what stays and goes. Again, if you don't want to get involved in this one, I'll understand... Equinox13706:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, first I do appreciate taking time to discuss this article. Badagani, I believe I left a pretty good description of what is meant by progressive. I understand that your conception of the word "progressive" might be different, however when used in the context of "urban development" it is quite accurate. Next, "Urban America" is an emerging description of the culture formally just associated with the "African-Americans. It therefore encapsulates the essence, style and general dynamic of the african-american experience. More to come...Prometheusfire
I see that you've been deeply involved in discussions about Kent State. Can we get you to weigh in on the photo renaming discussion? If you think that the edit is too minor, feel free to decline.--Knulclunk16:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it didn't get out of hand too, but I do wonder if you've considered that your POV colors your view about Kent State as well - not the article, but the event? You were apparently born several years after, so maybe it's hard for you to understand what it was like to be a college student against the war in May 1970. The sentiments "they can't kill all of us" and "it could have been me" are the ones you might think about a bit. Many protestors around the country were completely non-violent, I am sure you know. Or at least I hope you know that. I never did a violent act in my life. No rocks, nothing. But I protested an illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral war. Some of the wounded and killed at Kent State were not even involved in the protests, let alone doing anything that could invoke a "self-defense" response of stopping, turning in unison, and firing. Jeffrey Miller was over 250 feet away. How could he be a threat that needed such a reaction? There are accusations that evidence was suppressed. Do you find that impossible to believe? Do you think it is impossible that an order was given to shoot? Or an agreement was reached among the shooters to stop, turn in unison and shoot when they reached the top of the hill and were at a good vantage point? Please just think about it, and don't just reject what I'm saying as Democratic propaganda - this is not a wild-eyed conspiracy theory - this was one of the worst days in American history. It wasn't a matter of politics anymore - this was America killing its young, who were doing what our soldiers were supposed to be fighting for. Exercising their democratic, small d, rights. I do not mean to lecture - I really, honestly, hope you will think about it with an open mind. You seem like a reasonable person, and you may never have really examined what happened back then. Anyway, it was a good debate. Tvoz| talk11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC) PS New comments on the BOTTOM please!!![reply]
Absolutely...I'm not pretending I tilt otherwise. With that tilt, I probably would never be a college student protesting any war (in fact, I've already have fought one and my younger sister did a tour in Fallujah). Given that, along with my current occupation, the sentiment "that could have been me" comes almost daily.
I fully understand that some of the wounded and killed had nothing to do with the protests. It's undisputed that the Ohio National Guard was extremely poorly trained to respond to such an incident. However, you pointed to the feelings that permeated the student movement of the 60s/70s such as "that could have been me" or "they're tyring to kill us/they can't kill all of us" - I look at it from their perspective being from that world (military and LE) and knowing first hand what feelings/mentality permeated among the troops and cops. They were reports of snipers. Although the were later apparently false, the responders on the ground didn't know that at that time. In any situation such as what happened there, there is no way of knowing if someone or people have weapons in that crowd, regardless of what the political flavor of the day is, whether it's flower children singing "Give Peace a Chance" or a Ku Klux Klan rally. There will always be people, regardless of what political flavor, willing to be violent to force what they want.
Anyway, If I'm in that situation and I even think I see a weapon pointed at me or my fellow officer/soldier - that subject's going down. All other questions can be asked later. It's better to be tried by 6 than carried by 12, when it boils down to it. In other words, I'm going home alive - and I'm sure those guardsmen had the same mentality.
As far as evidence being supressed - absolutely I think it's possible. However, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the officer/soldier on the ground at the time. Equinox13706:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that. I understand how difficult the job of being an officer or soldier is, and I am not being facetious. Indeed, I always have put the bulk of the blame on the Governor for giving the order to have the Guard on campus with live ammunition, and the President and Vice President for creating a climate in which it might seem acceptable to shoot directly at protesting students. But I have trouble ignoring the fact that it was 29 out of 66 who fired, not all (numbers from memory - may be off), and the turn in unison as if responding to an order, and the fact that some did fire into the air or into the ground rather than directly at the students. And the distance that the students were, meaning that there wasn't an imminent threat. But yes, hindsight is different from how things seem in the heat of the situation. Had they been armed with rubber bullets, presumably no one would have been killed. By the way, the nephew of a friend was killed in Baghdad just after New Year's 2004 - he was around number 500, out of the now 3000+ - just a few weeks before he was to return home. IED, blunt force trauma. 25 years old, enlisted (not reserves or Nat'l Guard). I know the agony and have respect for soldiers, and I did during Vietnam as well. But I can't whitewash or forget Kent State - because when I was peacefully, non-violently protesting on a campus that day, it could have been me. And we can't - and I don't think any patriotic American such as yourself would - give back our right to protest what our government does, because if we do, we are no better than our enemies. The problem is, to me, that in the end there were four dead kids, not four dead or even injured guardsmen, and no weapons, no snipers, and no real acknowledgment from the government that they had done a terrible thing in sending the guard (barely older than the students) on campus armed to kill. There were lessons to be learned, and I believe it is important to not let it slide into sanitized history. I would like to think that despite your totally understandable last point, you too are horrified at what ensued. I'll think about what you said, and I hope you'll think about what I said too. Tvoz| talk07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Here it is] The Constitution quite clearly, and with great wisdom, states that 'Congress shall have the power to declare war'. War should not be entered into through a back door, or an executive order, or resolution - if we are going to put our soldiers in harm's way, and if we are going to invade, attack, or otherwise engage in war against another nation, the Constitution requires that a declaration of war come first. Why is this important? Because of checks and balances, because it is the most serious thing we can do as a nation. The current president often remarks that sending soldiers to war is the most awesome (in its negative sense) thing that a president does - and I don't think any of them do it lightly - but the bar is far too low and was in Vietnam. Congress never declared war then (and has not now). These are unconstitutional wars, and therefore also illegal. If they feel so strongly that a war is needed - and soldiers are likely to be sent to their deaths - then they owe it to us all to go through the process of real Congressional approval. There should be an overwhelming consensus that war is the only choice - I don't recall now (it's 3AM!) if the Constitution requires 2/3 or simple majority, but war is too serious a step to take without having Congress solidly behind it. As for immoral - there are so many reasons it was immmoral. We had not been attacked; it was essentially another country's civil war that we were intruding into, on the side of a propped-up government; the use of napalm; that we were not fighting against an army (not our fault, of course) so were indiscriminately killing civilians and destroying entire villages and the countryside in our desperate and impossible hope of defeating a guerilla enemy; our soldiers were largely drafted (which ties into why a declaration of war was so necessary) - they did not choose to fight in a cause they believed in, they were forced to by a government who allowed over 57,000 of them to be killed in, again, an illegal war that a large majority of Americans opposed; and the immorality of the draft was the way in which it targeted the poor and minorities who didn't have the knowledge or wherewithal to use the loopholes that existed and allowed some to get out of being drafted; the atrocities that occurred, My Lai being only one; and finally - although there are more reasons - it was immoral because it was unwinnable, and that was painfully apparent for many years, yet we continued on, killing more and more American soldiers - that is immoral. I'm afraid there are many parallels to today. but I am tired - it's late - and I also don't want to argue about this at all. Good "talking" with you. Tvoz | talk 08:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No argument from me, what happened shouldn't have happened at all. But no offense, TVoz, both parties (i.e. the politicians and the protestors) escalated the situation until there were tragic results. Their should have been absolutely no reason to call out the NG in the first place - period. However, when they did decide to call out the NG because the local police can't handle the situation, you have to expect that their firepower would be much greater than what local LE would have. I don't think you'd enjoy marching straight into a riot armed with no more than rubber bullets anymore than I would. When the 82nd Airborne Division deployed for the LA Riots in 1992 they went in fully armed and actually traded fire with some of the locals...however they were under strict orders to fire only when fired on - certainly a "lesson" (I hate that word) from KS.
I have no problem with your recent edits - I think they are sound. But I don't particularly get the graf about the Kent store owners and unless someone provides a citation it should probably go out completely. ALso I think the Nixon graf could be expanded - I'll see if I have any contemporaneous citations or later analysis that speak to this. Tvoz| talk08:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the graf about the store owners needs to go. Although it bolsters the argument of those on my side of the aisle about the whole situation being volitile, there's no specific statements from a Kent area store owner that this actually occured. As far as I know, it could be propaganda from my side of the aisle. I want to expand the info on Nixon's "dissent" statement. I'll try to get to it in a bit. Equinox13708:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too tired to actually read your newest edits - will do tomorrow. Had a question though about the I.F>Stone quote that's gone - but I'll look at it all tomorrow. Tvoz| talk09:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, in order to fend off any controversy that might arise, it's been discussed, here, that Interstates ending in 0/5 are major per AASHTO and that's why Mhking and I removed I-29, I-94, and I-81. Cheers! V60VTalk - VDemolitions04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Equinox137 - Looks like you've taken a bruising over your NO contribs. Thanks for the good fight. Since you've contributed to the North Omaha article so much in the past, I'm wondering if you can help figure out how to make it more "readable" - its getting long. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. - Freechild19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - not meant personally, not taken personally. We disagree, and clearly we both have strong feelings about the issues involved, so sometimes heat comes through. But all's good. Tvoz| talk06:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HOnestly, I think it's getting out of hand too - this kind of debate really doesn't belong on the article talk page (and I'm certainly as guilty as the next guy, so no criticism intended toward you), so yeah, that might not be a bad idea. Going to sleep now! Tvoz| talk07:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Equinox137! I see you are an admin candidate... But in order for other users to know that you are a candidate and, henceforth, be able to vote, you must transclude Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Equinox 137 to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, otherwise, your request might be considered "malformed" and it might end up being removed; if you for some reason don´t know how, then please tell me and I´ll be glad to do it for you. Well, good luck on it all! Signed, ♠Tom@sBat21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to transclude your candidacy page; simply add the following code above all of the other transclusions:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Equinox 137}}
Now, as for the expired deadline, I don´t really know what to do... So, transclude the page anyways, and either another user will rermove it per malformed or change the dates (Really, I suppose changing the dates would be the best solution, so just transclude it and leave a message somewhere, such as the edit summary, specificating the problem with the late transclusion and date innacuracy.) ♠Tom@sBat01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Equinox137! Now, I´ve found out what is to be done: Update the "Scheduled to end" date to a week after now and transclude the page as I explained above. ♠TomasBat19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said you were reverting vandalism, but in fact you re-added the vandalism. By looking at your other edits, I'd say you did it by accident. Just be more careful next time. TheBlazikenMaster12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of sounds like she kicked you out of the discussion ; Eh, I keep my eye on it. If she starts to push the article itself to much, I'll jump back in. I've been watching your exchange on the talk page, tho. Your reminders are good, especially the Bonus March. Don't forget Japanese American internment either. We all need to remember that government acts only with our blessing. What I think Tvoz forgets is that while she was marching, she was not in the majority prior to Kent State. The killings at Kent State was a huge turning point for public opinion. Though I believe it was just a police SNAFU, the young people killed were still martyrs and their deaths changed our nation forever.
Defender 911 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry if it appears that I am anti-railroad police, in fact I am not. However, rail cops do serve a company and report to company management and not the public. Your police reports are not covered under the right to know laws and your policies and procedures are controled by a company and the public has little if any control short of having your special commissions revoked.
As to "RR police are not federal officers at this time" this statement makes it appear that this could happen. This IS NOT the case.
Any move to make RR police "federal officers" would meet strong resistance from the Department of Justice and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Assoic. (FLEOA). The various federal agencies are strictly restricted from giving any such special officer status to private police or security guards except when contracted to the agency.
As to rail cops attending the "FBI academy", this is not the academy that FBI agents train at, but rather the "National Academy" that the FBI offers to outside law enforcement officers. It is not considered certified police training by any state of federal agency. It is offered to police management and it considered more important for political and advancement concerns. A lot of chiefs of police and sheriffs attend but it is in no way a precursor to gaining federal officer status.
I have spent 30 years in this game and retired as a "resident Special Agent" with a federal agency and while I have not worked with UP cops for years, I did with Amtrak and BNSF agents and while nice folks, most knew that when the rubber hit the road, they were company police and not general authority police officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.41.80 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apprecate your response. You are correct that RR police report to company management, however their commissions and enforcement authority still orginate with the state government, just as any other local/county/state officer. Stating that they serve a company and not the public, is IMHO extremely POV because you're giving the reader an impression that RR police make biased law enforcement decisions on their company's behalf, which is simply not true. Quite the opposite actually, because RR police often have to defend inability to take action at times due to lack of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc, to other company managers. Their enforcement decisions must stand up to judicial scrutiny, just as any other local/county/state officer. As far as general enforcement, in many states in UPs system, they are REQUIRED by statute to take enforcement action on non-RR related incidents such as DUIs, domestics, and other various calls. Their PD reports are not covered under right to know, however they ARE subject to discovery. It is also correct that they "are not federal officers at this time" - however this is something they ARE pushing for. Whether or not that happens, of course, remains to be seen. You are also correct about the FBI National Academy - my apologies, I should have made myself clearer. I was in no way referring to the FBI's academy or the FLETC.
I can understand your experience with Amtrak and BNSF, however I can't speak for them. All I can tell you that this is not the case at UP. Equinox13701:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you will never convince anyone that railroad company police will make decisions that are contrary to a companies interests (and have a job). Sorry, but that dog just don’t hunt! I’m sure the decisions are fair, lawful but are made knowing who pays them.
I’m not sure what states provide “full police authority” to RR cops but I do know that Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Illinois mandate that they confine their activities to RR property or while investigating crimes agilest the railroad off property, but even that is severely restricted.
And finally, having held RR and other special police commissions in the past and now a management with a RR, I have to say most states issue the commission and that’s about it for oversight except require a minimum of police training each year or in response to a serious complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.41.80 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything. If you have that opinion, that's up to you, but it is NOT a neutral point of view to be adding to any articles here. In my opinion, the only difference I see is that RR police report to company management while local police report to local politicians.
Washington, yes they're restricted; Idaho, no - they have full authority; Oregon, they're restricted to the right of way; Illinois - they have full authority as of January 2007.
You couldn't be more incorrect about how "commissions" are handled in the present day. The "commission" is the same as the certification of every police officer in the individual state. This means that RR officers are required to complete the same basic training as every police recruit in the state and their certification is kept on file with whatever the state authority that handlesit. They also have to maintain their weapons certification per the standards of the state they live in. This is why no RR police department will consider any applicant that is not already certified in the state he/she is to work in. As far as complaints, "serious" complaints are investigated by the RR police chain of command, just the same as how it is done at smaller LE agencies. A state certifcation for a RR police officer can be revoked the same as it would be for any other police officer for example: a RR police officer is convicted of a felony - his state certification will be revoked by the appropriate commission. For example, BNSF Special Agent Howard Johnson had his certification revoked after he pulled his weapon on Chicago police officers. Equinox137 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, reality has a left-leaning bias -- (Yep.)
Damn straight! After all, ONLY liberals believe such crackpot left-wing statements as "the sky is blue" and "the Earth revolves around the sun". Also, I'm no fan of Reality - it has a well-documented liberal bias. Ericster08 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep telling youself that, shithead.
On that same note, Evan quit Wikipedia shortly after he wrote that because he wasn't getting his way, so you tell me, who's fighting the losing battles???Equinox137 (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Because he wasn't getting his way"? What is he, in pre-school? This is an encyclopedia, you dumbass. It's not about "getting your way"; it's about adhering to the facts. And if you don't understand that by now you're never going to understand it. Even if you do find a POV article with a left-wing slant, do you really think that replacing it with your right-wing slant is going to make the article NPOV? Get real. Ericster08 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add a comment similar to this, but it looks like Evan beat me to the punch. BTW, thanks for your edit on [Individual Augmentee]--you removed the "presumed" statement which, upon further review, did look suspiciously like an attack on the war (something I didn't want to do). If you want to see something rabidly anti-war, look at what it was before. Originally, the article Individual Augmentee simply redirected back to [Individual Augmentee Policy] (check out the history on IA Policy to see what the original author wrote). I surmised that it was written by someone who was ticked that they were sent to Iraq. Oh, and what did you do in the Army, by the way? (I'm in Iraq right now).Bdmccray (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm htom (or H. Thomas, if you want to be formal, I've used htom since the 1960s, before it became a lowercased Unix login in the 70s); Ottersmith is an anagram I use when that's not available. I think that you get deserve a virtual cookie of some sort for being the first person to call me "Otter". htom (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evan left a skidmark on my user page, too, I've slid it down and replied, in case he ever comes back. I hope that he doesn't become depressed with using a typewriter and shift to more violent means of expression. There are days when I really wonder if I'm a human being, or a Martian; how can he think that what he was doing was useful in any way to anyone? htom (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Punisher war zone.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Punisher war zone.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Punisher war zone.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Punisher war zone.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Punisher war zone.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your AfD proposal for this list was so badly formed that it hardly appeared on the AfD page. It had no header giving the article name. It has been like this since 22 December. I have therefore closed the discussion at AfD as keep. there was simply no way that this could have attracted enough editors to get a consensus. If you still feel strongly about this, I suggest you start again and make sure the proposal is correct this time. I have left open that possability. --Bduke (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive criticism (cough, cough). Care to tell me how to properly form an AfD proposal, since I did it so "badly"? Or was it "badly" formed because it pertained to an anti-war issue??? Equinox137 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The process is described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Sorry, it was late at night when I came across this and I could not really see what you had not done correctly. However, the result was that the small amount of discussion in the AfD page had no header giving the name of the article in question and thus just appeared at the end of another discussion. It was thus quite unclear what article the discussion was actually about. It really only became clear when the discussion above was closed and your discussion fell outside the box that closure adds to the discussion. It also was not properly categorized. Take a look at the history. My actions were certainly not because it "pertained to an anti-war issue". If you want me to try to relist it properly, I am happy to have a go at it, but it will have to be in about 5 or 6 hours. --Bduke (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea there was any disagreement on his vegetarianism. Every source I've found says the same thing -- he started making his own meals at 16, and they didn't contain meat. Can you point me to one of the sources that says otherwise? It might make for an interesting paragraph or two in the article. --GoodDamon05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name by which she was actually called, and which American National Biography calls her. We are not here to invent an arbitrary standard of 21-century usage, and apply it to a nineteenth century figure; especially when it involves us in parenthetical disambiguation, which we will go some length to avoid. If we were using such a standard, we would have begun with Hillary Rodham Clinton ;-> SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree and maintain that the arbitrary standard of 21-century usage of 21st Century usage (i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton) has already been applied with historical women, I don't see this as a big enough issue to argue about. I don't see any evidence that this is what she was called at the time, but I'll let it go without conflict. Equinox137 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ESH and HRC are the same format; therefore I do not see how including the maiden name, as Senator Clinton herself does, can violate 21st century norms.
As for Vandenberg, et. al.: this is only an attack if having a political career and acting to advance it are bad things. I do not believe that; it is an obsolete early-nineteenth century convention, accompanied by the ritual denial that one is running for President, as opposed to being the unwilling recipient of the acclamations of one's friends. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"ESH and HRC are the same format; therefore I do not see how including the maiden name, as Senator Clinton herself does, can violate 21st century norms." That wasn't what I said. I never said that anything violated 21st century norms. I said that the 21st Century usage of a maiden name along with a married name (i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton) is being applied to historical women....was that was not the format of the time. Women were considered de facto property of their husbands after the time of their marraiges and I don't trust in the source that claimed Elizabeth Hamilton or any other notable 18th Century woman was referred to as such - with their maiden name as part of their full name.
But either way, who cares? You're getting your way on the issue. I already stated I'm letting it go without conflict.
Tell me, what's POV about describing Vandenberg and Henry Cabot Lodge as Republicans? They were. Please come and discuss on Talk:Alexander Hamilton, instead of continually reverting to a text which avoids terminal blandness only by ssserting, falsely, that the Hamilton industry began in the twentieth century, and implying, falsely, that Democratic politicians took part in it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. When Lodge wrote his life of Hamilton, he was a junior Harvard professor; Vandenberg was a newspaper editor; both were offered high political office because of their writings. What's POV about that? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please dont respond to this because I no longer care about the Anti war list edit war thing. Those were good reasons why it should not be on the list, though I still dont support its removal. Obviously our opinions are quite different. Yojimbo501 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wikipedia:Wta#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter says this word "should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article." We don't speak of Al Qaeda in the same way, and they fit the standard definitions much better. Additionally, as I also pointed out in my edit summary, the US government has taken Hezbollah off the terrorism list at times - when it's on and off is based on political reasons IMHO (and many others' opinion), not caused by recent real world acts. So I don't see why it should be used here. Cheers, John Z (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and a whole bunch of other movies. I just thought that because you edit the anti war list, a lot you'd like to know. It may strike you strange why I (Yojimbo501) am telling you this but I still am watching the anti war list and I hope that despite our previous conflict, we don't have to be enemies. Anyways I'll take Flags of our Fathers off the list but, since you seem to have seen more war films I'll let you take care of the rest. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, neither anon nor myself are challenging the article's factual accuracy as such; anon is merely trying to game the system to reflect a personal preference with respect to the order of presentation. Albrecht (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Taylor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Damiens.rf01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region (which may include KC, Manhattan, Lawrence, Salina, or other places where volunteers are interested) sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.
Thanks for uploading Image:Punisher war zone.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
