User talk:Kaisershatner/archive2

United States Bill of Rights

Kaisershatner: You've made some remarkable improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article. This particular subject is out of my personal expertise, but I'll try to make a few minor improvements, if I can find any. Keep up the good work! Bart 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voted on new FAC! --PopUpPirate 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Johnson

Greetings, Kaiser!
You were kind enough to support the FAC candidacy of my article on Katie Holmes, for which I am grateful. I've put forward another nomination, Ohio's lieutenant goveror Bruce Johnson, and I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson. PedanticallySpeaking 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the article per your comments. Would you be willing to change your vote to support on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bruce_Johnson? PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Since you claim this article as one of your best efforts I think you might be interested in my remarks on its talk page. I assume that your work was some time in the past, and I was very impressed by your recent work on United States Bill of Rights, so it appears that the shortcomings that I mention were the result of subsequent editing. Too Old 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References/Citations

I assume that you are one of the Wikipedia gurus. I note that there seem to be many different methods of inserting citations, apparently the subject of a long debate. Aside from the desire for a uniform method, there should be an automatic (or semi-automatic) means of eliminating errors such as the unmatched ref tag. Although I don't know how to do it, I envision a button on the talk page that would pop up a small window into which the citation/reference could be typed. Clicking a button in the daughter window would close the window and either insert the citation or cancel the whole operation without inserting anything. In the case of some of the older methods of inserting references/citations I see a problem when a citation is deleted -- perhaps because of a dead link -- without deleting the reference; though this problem is not encountered with the newer html method. How could I become more knowledgeable about the software behind the Wikipedia? Too Old 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rathvon Recollections

By SimonATL 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisershatner. NPR aired that recording because they were convinced of its authenticity. You apparently did not read my discussion of the background of this recording. It is NOT some handed-down thing from generation to generation. Rathvon was an eyewitness, himself to the event. He didn't HEAR "about" it - he was there. In fact, I'm reading a biographical sketch of him written by a the Longyear Historical Society and Museum that has information on both him, his wife and other people that contributed to his church, Christian Science.

The very fact that in his life, he did not try to sell or push this fact (hence its not being well- known) actually supports its validity. He made the recording in 1938. I'm convinced of its authenticity. He became a well-respected religious writer, public lecturer and a director of the Christian Science church. (NO relation to weirdo Scientology, by the way and publisher of the Christian Science Monitor winner of 7 Pulitizer Prizes). What kind of "proof" do you need. I'm going to take this up with the appeals process as this thing is authentic. Here's what I posted on the discussion page on the Gettysburg Address.

Here it is:

I was suprised that Rathvon's audio recollections were not already noted in this article. But, actually, NPR only has "part of the story" on Rathvon. William V. Rathvon is the only known eyewitness of both Lincoln's arrival at Gettysburg and his address itself to have left an audio recording of his recollections.

I actually had heard of the audio recording before NPR and have cassette tape copy from a friend who used to sell them on the internet. On one side is a lecture on the subject of Christian Science and on the other side, almost incidentaly, is his recollections of Lincoln.

Who was William V. Rathvon? He was successful Colorado businessman and an accomplished public lecturer. He ended up, of all places, as treasurer, in 1918 of the Christian Science Church in Boston Massachussets in 1918 and a member of its Board of Directors. He and his wife, Ella S. Rathvon, had served on the staff of the founder of that religion, Mary Baker Eddy. By the 1930s that Church had radio broadcasts of its religious services and religious radio shows. As a public lecturer and one of the five top people in that church, Rathvon would have had execellent access to the top quality recording devices of his time. Hence the quality of the 78rpm record. The term "long lost," really doesn't apply, as the Rathvon audio recollections have been known by an extremely small circle of individuals ever since he made them in 1938. To Rathvon, they were actually incidental to what he felt were his more important church-work responsibilities. I suspect that he made them simply for historical posterity as he never promoted them, or even promoted the idea that he had made them nor sold them per my source. I doubt very much that he even realized that they were unique a he, as an adult, saw men such as Lincoln's personal secretary, John Hay, a Secretary of State under McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.

More information on this recording might be available by contacting the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity in Boston, MA as they have extensive archival information on Mary Baker Eddy, the Christian Science church, and, of course, all of its key individuals such as Rathvon, who, as a personal student of Mary Baker Eddy, a church treasurer and church director, certainly would have been. As a Christian Scientist and a amateur church historian, I had known about Rathvon for more than 30 years. But I didn't hear about this recording until the early 1990s. David Keyston, the founder of the web site http://www.christianscience.org first put the tape on line on his web site. If anyone would like a copy in MP3 format they can email me at SimonATL@yahoo.com as Keyston said I could share it with whomever I liked. I no longer see the recording at that site.

As I added to the article, Rathvon, was a nine year old boy when he saw Lincoln at Gettsburg became a gifted public lecturer and director of the Christian Science church. He made an excellent quality 78rpm disk recording in 1938 including his reading the address, itself. A copy wound up at National Public Radio during a their "Quest for Sound" project in the late 90s. Thet often air them around Linclon's birthday. To listen, click here [6]. Even after move than half a century, Rathvon's audio recollections remain a moving testimony to Lincoln's transcending effect on his fellow countrymen and the love which so many ardent unionists held for him. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gettysburg_Address"

My mistake as I misread your comment. No argument. Re Scientology, yes, it was insensitive of me. Glad you apparently appreciate the difference between the two religions and the words "weird" and "whacky" too. SimonATL 17:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Bill of Rights

Congratulations on the United States Bill of Rights becoming a Featured Article. You really transformed it from mediocre to exceptional! Bart 03:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

I just want to thank you for your work on Ayn Rand. It's a difficult article to deal with, yet you've steadily improved its quality. Good work. Alienus 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Objectivism

The project is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism. I have added the user names of all those who expressed interest to the list of participants on the WikiProject page. I hope this is ok. --Matthew Humphreys 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning Templates

Hi, I noticed that you didn't put subst into at least one of your vandalism warning templates. You should do. Take a look at Template:TestTemplates and Wikipedia:Template substitution for more information. --Wisd e n17 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on my talk page, someone only pointed it out to me very recently, so I thought I'd pass on the advice. --Wisd e n17 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Admin status

I think you should have access to admin tools, and if you request admin status I will support your candidacy. I must admit I haven't followed the voting there lately, but seing you've been around for a long time, have made many thousand edits, contributed to lot's of FA's, write edit summaries, and have stayed out of trouble, I can't imagine many people would oppose you. If you'd prefere me nominating you, I can do that as well. Shanes 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Yes, very much. Your opening description makes an impact on users and gets them to know what areas of work your intrested in. Your comment made me think at first that this was a bad-faith nomination until I saw you had a few supporters.

Another RFA tip: Don't respond to your opposers (not that you have any yet). If the oppostion is truly as bad-faith as you think it is, someone else WILL step in and handle it. Moe ε 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H5N1

You are taking H5N1 in an interesting direction. If you wish to continue, I welcome the help. I've been trying to get someone to provide a fresh eye now for some time. On the other hand, the article as you left it and the article as it stands right now after mychanges is not better than it was before your changes. But it has the potential to be so. But to get there, I need your fresh eye. I can make sure we don't lose data or introduce inaccuracy (so far you've done that mostly by moving things so with a new context they no longer mean the same thing). I would like you to take the article from where I left off and try to continue inplementing your vision for the article structure. We can go back and forth until it is far betterthan it ever was. But I am incapable of implementing your vision. If you don't finish the job, I'll have to revert back. I don't want to do that. Thanks, in advance, for helping out with H5N1. WAS 4.250 21:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "right this minute". I was thinking of counting on you more days than not to edit H5N1 and thus each of us get in at least one back and forth every 48 hours or so. Faster is ok, but I wasn't thinking of doing it all right now ! WAS 4.250 21:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We make a great team. Care to take on any more articles in the H5N1 or Flu suite of articles? WAS 4.250 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I also appreciate the time and effort you put into the article. Hopefully a little more work will make it ready for TFA. (By the way, I think the Gettysburg article is excellent, and your comments on political tilt in Wikipedia quite right -- even though I'm not politically conservative.) Best, --Wilanthule 21:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anon vandal

Blocked. (splat!) Thanks for monitoring him. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Braganza

Hi, you created this from a redirect back in January. Unfortunately there is an almost identical article at Bragança (royal house). Definitely only one of these should be kept with any extra content merged, the problem is, which one is the correct title? Arniep 13:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen

I just wanted to ask you to stay involved with the Watchmen article, even if it is at a minor level. The article is a good one I feel, one taht I have put some time into, and the article would benefit from a few committed editors! I liked your previous edits to the page, which did much to marten up its appearence Adasta 11:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop!

Hi, Kaisershatner/archive2, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

You RFA was tight and I had to use my bureaucrat's discretion to promote you. Please list yourself under WP:LA. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. Congratulations! WAS 4.250 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! —thames 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Congratulations! Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --StabiloBoss 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the personalized note. And please don't let vandalwhacking get the better of you; you're a good editor and I don't want to see that go away. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! You deserve this! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 00:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I have complete faith you'll be a fine admin.--MONGO 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the land of ice and snow. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats --Deville (Talk) 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently", "recently", etc.

Hi, Thanks for your message to me '... I think you were basically on target that using As of 2006 is a good idea. The precise placement of it in this article might be tricky but you are right that "currently" and "recently" are not great terms for the encyclopedia.' Now moot in the article you were talking about, H5N1 (flu), as it's been rewritten and is better for it. But I do try to get rid of all such things when I come across them - they are VERY common, unfortunately, particularly in articles about living people. "He is currently the chief assistant to the assistant chief" ==> "In 2005 he became chief assistant to the assistant chief". Best wishes, Pol098 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Moppin Way

That was a Kaiser Chiefs joke, which I think your name relates from (I am soo music zoned) but you may have no clue what I'm talking about, right.. anyway! User:Nihonjoe has fair-use images on his userpage, and even though I've attempted to reason with him that he shouldn't, he says that it's no different from the main page or portals. I also tried to inform him of WP:USER but was ignored. If you could look into this it would be helpful.

There are fair use images in his self made userboxes and the main one. Hope you can look into this, hope you are great. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts? I think HighwayCello needs to be a little patient. I've been busy working on other projects and haven't had time to update that part of my page since s/he asked about it. It's done now, though (except for the highlight section, which I maintain is fair use). --日本穣 Nihonjoe 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that very few of the userboxes on my page were actually created by me. Most of them are subst'd due to that exciting row over them a couple months back. Blame the people who created them, not me, for any content they may have had. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 16:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on the MERs

Specifically, splitting off the discoveries into Scientific information from the Mars Exploration Rover mission, both pages needed something like that. The Opportunity rover article looks much better. Don't stop now though! --JamesHoadley 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re User_talk:JamesHoadley#MERs, yeah, it was definitely necessary, the Opportunity article especially had a lot of work done on it during the first few months, and was then abandoned. Now it's pretty clear to put it's travels and engineering status on the Op article, and science work in the science article.

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Kaiser, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/old

Please note, that the items you added to the /old subpage will be blanked on the next bot update from LDBot. If you wish to move the locations of those notices, you'll have to put it in the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page, and not the subpage.

Thanks, --light darkness^(talk) 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems right now :-) Thanks for fixing it. --light darkness^(talk) 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricker Amendment

Greetings, Kaiser!
Some months ago you were helping out on the Bricker Amendment article. I unfortunately got sidetracked on other issues, e.g. making Katie Holmes a FA and getting her on the front page, but I've been working on a complete revision to the article. My work-in-progress is at User:PedanticallySpeaking/In Progress2. I still have quite a bit re the congressional consideration to add but I wonder if you have anything to add about what I have so far. Thanks for your help. PedanticallySpeaking 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reference

Just a note, I'm going to nix the claim that Patrick Arguello shot a flight atourced in the Leila Khaled article ASAP - until we can find a reference. Just thought I'd give you the heads up here, rather than on her talk page. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi Paradox

You're quite right that I should have given some meaningful comment feedback when I reverted your edits. At the time, I just couldn't think of anything meaningful to say. Your changes were all esthetic/stylistic changes, and my esthetic/stylistic opinion was that the article was better before those changes. I didn't make this decision lightly, and I did see the reasoning behind your edits.

Given the greater space of this discussion page, here's some feedback: The italicized section, while not a quote, should be set off in a block quote and in italics, IMO, because it is the crux of the article. The article is about one single question, so a careful wording of that question should be clearly set apart. If this were a magazine article, the editor would probably have used a pull-quote box for that passage, even though it's not a quote. I expect many book editors would do something similar. Similarly, the long, sentence-like headings may break a rule, but they are important for keeping the structure of the article clear and visible. The article is an unusual one, being an examination of a question rather than an examination of a topic, so it seems appropriate to me that the best way to lay it out involves breaking a rule or two of standardized style.

Several editors have been putting a lot of work into this article lately (much more than me), and they've had a lot of discussion about such things as the section headings. Naturally, this doesn't mean that they "own" the article, but it does mean that esthetic/stylistic issues like these have been given a lot of thought recently; something that's certainly not true of all articles. KarlBunker 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi

I had a rather long response planned to your post to me (thx) but it seemed to make more sense on the Fermi Paradox talk page. Any comments there are welcome. Marskell 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's Field hijackings

Brilliant work on Dawson's Field, Kaiser. Thank you for doing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Fantastic, so now you are an administrator! I would have come earlier, but could not on account of my sickness from 3rd April to 24th April 2006 resulting into my wiki-absence. I convey my congratulations to you on your elevation as an administrator, and wish you all the best! Have you ever seen me around? I am just curious! --Bhadani 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.62.31.254 at it again

This morning, 69.62.31.254 resumed his vandalism streak by adding the word "pot" to the opening sentence of Digital rights management. --dreish~talk 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out numbers under a 100?

I thought you spell out numbers only under 10.--Ryz05 _t 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl who turned to stone article

I spoke to Activision and said It's coming out late 2006.

Matt Gonzalez

Kaiserhatner,

I couldn't miss mention of your recent promotion. Congrats. I'm not sure I'm sold on the Wikipedia experience and will likely retire from it soon. I wanted to offer my gratitude for your effort and time taken to resolve the issues relating to this article even if we didn't agree at times. I'll be leaving the NPOV stub because it seems appropriate until the biases are cleaned up and removed. Best of luck to you in your new capacity.

Cheers, Rasax 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kaiserhatner,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me and share your thoughts about the Matt Gonzalez article. I have no reservations about working with most anyone in order to resolve any related NPOV issues. Please feel free to contact me when/if there’s anything I can do to help.

I see no reason for tossing Wikipedia’s good faith policy, even when it seems like I’m the lone participant.. There’s certainly room for healthy debate, dissent and disagreement in my view. I realize the written word may not always convey the original intent and getting further clarification before making a hasty conclusion is constructive on the web and in real-time.

I agree with you about the relevance of what parents do in biographies, and Gonzalez isn’t an exception. It’s certainly possible Gonzalez’s father sold cigarettes from the back of his car and later became a division manager, and I raised a similar point in a previous discussion on the talk pages. Without strong secondary sources; however, it’s a leap of faith to say with any degree of certainty. The SF Chron got it wrong during a mudslinging campaign, often sided with Newsom, and was the only source to claim Gonzalez’s father was a tobacco company division chief. It was circulated and recycled from the Newsom camp during the last days of the campaign and not since. It was only a few days earlier when Gonzalez corrected an erroneous conclusion the paper’s editorial board had made about his family’s history and throws the SF Chron’s reliability into question. I realize it isn’t up to us editors to evaluate verifiable information; however, we aren’t prevented from evaluating the strength of our sources. Given the recommended space for Wikipedia articles, it seemed more prudent to mention both views, move on, and utilitize the rest of the article space for larger controversies. Describing the differences avoids stepping into a controversy and keeps Wikipedia safer from liability issues - that’s my thinking about it. Does that help? Rasax 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kaiserhatner,

Wow, you're quick to respond. Impressive!

I believe I've addressed your concerns on the article's talk pages already. Please let me know if there's anything else. Otherwise, I'm happy to move onto the next issue and will catch up with you tomorrow. Rasax 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and respond on the article's talk pages.

Regards, Rasax 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for helping to clean up the Matt Gonzalez article. Griot 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding that! Moncrief 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Kaisershatner for superb and comprehensive editing and tidying up of Matt Gonzalez. Thank you!! Moncrief 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiserhatner,

Thanks for taking the time to list your comments, and I’d like an opportunity to respond to a few points you’ve made about good faith, Wikipedia policy, POV pushing, and writing for the opposition.

Perhaps you might explain how I’ve not responded in good faith when I’ve consistently responded to each contributor on-point to the discussion and ignored the personal attacks and assessments about my motivation from unqualified, but self-appointed experts. In argumentation, this behavior is recognized as an ad hominem attack, and unacceptable. In parliamentary debate it is referred to as a “Point of personal order” violation, and grounds for disqualification. Disqualified are those who violate the grounds, not those who raise them. I don’t have any problem with the spirit of good faith nor have I. No where in Wikipedia is it mentioned that good faith is a one-way deal and I can only hope it extends equally to all participants.

It isn’t clear how citing Wikipedia policy is construed as “...tantamount to saying ‘You are ignorant.’” I don’t believe this is warranted since citing policy removes my personal views from the discussion and relies on a credible source to settle an issue at hand. I do believe other contributors would benefit greatly by reviewing a cited policy before furthering the conversation. I don't dispute the occasional frustration from personal attacks and having the contributions I’ve spent considerable time on disregarded without the courtesy of an explanation, and believe I’m within my right to state an issue without sugarcoating it when the burden of proof is entirely ignored. The differences in this regard are enormous since personal attacks and unwarranted edits are aggressive behavior, and addressing an issue asserts a problem without aggression by recognizing one exists. Assertive, by definition, is not the same as aggressive behavior, and problems are only able to be addressed when recognized they exist.

I’ve taken the time to review Wikipedia’s NPOV policy quite extensively. It’s clear the contributors on Gonzalez’s article have not if verifiable information from secondary sources can be written off or omitted when an article’s censors don’t like it. I don’t believe the spirit of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy permits bombast as a substitute for substance. POV pushing would be defined as pushing a point-of-view without adequate support for it, making it my own, or giving equal consideration to all views simply because they’re opposing, which writes off Wikipedia’s undue weight policy.

I have no problem with Wikipedia’s writing for the enemy recommendation, and see the benefit when applicable. However, I don’t believe it should be used as a substitute when the concerns I’ve raised stem from conflicts with other cited Wikipedia policy.

Again, I welcome your feedback and appreciate the time you’ve taken to share your thoughts.

Regards, Rasax 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the Grand Duke

Now there's a new title. ;-) Anyhow, this person was a repeat vandal, and was blocked as such. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism and homosexuality.

I thought you might be interested in what's going on in Objectivism and homosexuality. Al 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Ian

Thanks, it would be nice to have someone not invloved with writing for the project watch this guy. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

I was not vandalising. I wrote to User:Tawkerbot2 to explain myself. I am sorry again. I love wikipedia. My family name is Bellon and I did not think it should be a redirect to metal poisoning. When you put a last name in wikipedia, usually it brings you a search result with all the famous people with this last name. I looked it up on google and saw on the 5 page that it can also mean metal poisoning. Do as you think. User:64.254.235.250

Vandalism

Ta for blocking 198.234.255.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I am still concerned about persistent vandal 82.198.250.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Some of his many edits are sneakier and less obvious to vandal watchers; he seems to me to be a wilful disinformer, rather than merely a kid having a lark. Viewfinder 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just want to say, thanks for your support of my article! I'm really grateful you took the time to post a comment on my page, I do appreciate what you have said. Thanks also for your comments on the peer review stage... it means a lot to me when people respond to my article :D Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only the First 8 are Bill of Rights

Only in grade school/high texts have the first 10. You can't sue in court for anything but the first eight. Look in any First Year Const Law book. I suggest professors Cass Sunstein to Richard A. Epstein would agree that BoR are Amds 1 thru 8. John wesley 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what my edit said, 1.) that popularly it is the first ten because of when they were ratified, 2.) for lawyers and those who want to sue the govt, they can only use the first eight. I thought I was correct and clear. So which was it? Was my edit ambiguous or missing information? John wesley 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things about the Const

Many people think that it's only the written text, but when lawyers discuss whether some act by govt is or is not Constitutional, they only mean whether a court will uphold the govt action. That the US Const is written while the Englisg Const refers to the customs and practices because theirs is not written. When historians and legal scholars talk of the US Const you need to be careful to realize they are talking about more than the text. They talk case law generally. John wesley 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism's view of Jesus

Nice work, you made some excellent improvements. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article

yes, seriously

Nice to be mentioned

I'm driving a moving truck down from S.F. to L.A. tonight. .... Some people just irritate me, and I don't mind returning the favor. But, you're right, I should ignore that ilk. All I can say is thank god for rational conservatives like mongo, kaisershatner, voldemort, jdavidb, etc. It's a shame there's more dittoheads here than folks like that. Derex 23:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)