User:Hydriotaphia/Archive 1

Bernard Williams

Thank you so much for your kind remarks about Bernard Williams. Your feedback is very much appreciated and makes all the hard work seem worthwhile. Best wishes, Slim 06:47, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Bias and equal protection

Thanks for your kind invitation. Sounds interesting, but I have no idea when I'll find the time. When skimming the article, I was led to inquire about institutional racism and found it just appallingly abominable in so many ways -- not to mention itself racist as hell. I'm really tiring of this bullshyt ignorance and outright racism on Wikipedia (one of the reasons I limit my exposure to ignorant-ass white folks as much as possible in the real world). I'm beginning to think I don't have the patience for this anymore. Wikipedia's a great idea, but with the majority of the contributors being white, most of the articles dealing with black folks are just sheer crap -- which makes it a really shitty source information about us. Such misrepresentation and abject ignorance! And what a disservice. I almost wish Wikipedia would ban outright all articles treating blacks until they can attract more people of color with some knowledge, common sense and perspective to the site. Personally, I don't have the time or the inclination to run around putting out fires all over the goddamned place. (Sorry. It's my time to complain, I guess.) The only answer I can give you is "maybe, sometime in the future." That's probably not good enough, but right now it's the best I can do. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 13:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was writing about the article on institutional racism. I understand what you mean about libertarianism, but within many libertarians runs a deeply racist thread. I mean how many black libertarians do you know? Besides, rather than provide an incontestible and obvious example of institutionalized racism -- among many to choose from -- the writer takes the opportunity to mention how "minorities" generally score lower on standardized tests than white. White supremacist, racist shyt. Par for the course. Wake up and smell the coffee. deeceevoice 17:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Equal Protection Clause

(I decided to move this here instead of the FAC page, in case there's nothing to be said): "Oh, and one possible subject to cover is if/how this affected other countries politics (eg did it start new debates anywhere?), social issues (eg riots, protests), and/or laws (eg anyplace adopt it nearly verbatim?)--like pretty much all my comments, I think this is more of a 'nice to have' than grounds to oppose, but since we're trying to build a world-class encyclopedia, if it had any international impact, it would be nice to include that." Niteowlneils 06:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Affirmative action section

Looked pretty balanced to me (tho' I'm pretty much a flaming liberal, so no guarantees everyone would agree) and seemed pretty solid overall. I left a couple minor notes on the Talk page, and did a minor edit of the article. Niteowlneils 04:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ConLawStudent.com

I saw your work on Incorporation (Bill of Rights) and thought you might be interested in a project I just recently started @ ConLawStudent.com (Constitutional Law Student). The goal is to get a wiki for Law Students, Professors, and anyone interested in learning in detail the legal arguments behind each piece of the constitution. I'm still getting the framework set up for people to start adding articles on different sections, but if you're interested in helping get the project going, let me know. My email is friendly@reed.edu.

Equal Protection Clause again

I'd be happy to take a look at it. It's nice to see the word "intelligent" on my user page. Makes a nice change.  :-) Slim 01:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Hydro, I'm fine. The attacker attacks everyone. I'm quite far back in the line and therefore not too bothered. Slim 01:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

The article looks quite good; I've very interested in U.S. Supreme Court case law. I'de like to see the article's lead section a little longer (see Wikipedia:Lead section) as well as some mention of Bush v. Gore and the use of the Equal Protection Clause in that case. Neutrality^talk 02:15, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Voted "support" on the FAC page. Can see you have done a lot of work on this one, and have gotten good suggestions that you have responded to. Good luck. Edeans 03:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my addition from the Equal Protection article to the Due Process article where it belongs -- I appreciate it. I used to know this stuff better, but it's been a few years since I've read much about it. One additional comment about the Equal Protection article -- while I think it's an excellent article, I think that the article should treat more extensively the early history of the clause. However, I'd have to do some research in order to be able to do that myself, and as I'm translating an article on Minoan civilization into French, I haven't much time to do so.Zantastik 08:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree with above comment on need for inclusion of Bush v. Gore since EPC was much of the rationale there. I think that if there is going to be a link to "admissions" then there should be an article on the collegiate admissions process. Possibly that word should be de-linked and instead the articles on the cases cited need to be created/expanded. This article does cover a very basic part of U.S. constitutional law and should be feature soon IMO. Rlquall 03:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congrats on EPC getting featured article status! Have noted also your continued refinements and improvements to the article. Thank you for your contributions. Edeans 01:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Fourteenth Amendment

After some nitwit started vandalizing the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendment pages I rewrote the Fourteenth to give it some added heft. It could still benefit from some more scholarship; as it stands it is once over lightly on a lot of disparate topics. And we need to make sure that the cranks (2nd Amendment types, 14th Amendment deniers) don't try to take it over. You seem to be up to the task. Italo Svevo

FAC

Hi, Hydriotaphia, thanks very much for your enthusiastic support of Colley Cibber on WP:FAC. It was a big boost, and quite a surprise too, to see strangers show up and say they liked my 18th-century cruft! Bishonen | Talk 17:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern

In fact, it is quite possible that he is one of the many celebrities that alienated voters into not voting for Kerry. [1]

I don't think that line is POV at all, it does mention that Stern costing Kerry votes is only possible. After all, as the link proves there is considerable evidence for that. -- Old Right 19:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Old Right, the evidence that even Franklog provides is not, in my opinion, considerable. It doesn't even show that there is a correlation—let alone causation—between where Stern is heard and how many votes Bush got in the two elections. To show even a correlation, you would have to show that where Stern isn't heard, Bush's votes stayed the same or decreased. If you can show that, then we can begin to consider whether the statement should be included in the article. However, since you have linked to a weblog that doesn't do anything of the sort, then I don't think it's appropriate to include the statement or the reference. Further, even if the evidence you linked to did show a correlation, the reference to "one of the many celebrities" would still be POV and unsupported (how do you know that "many" celebrities alienated people?). I'm sincerely sorry if what I say seems harsh, but what you linked to is simply insufficient support for the statement. It is of course "possible" that there is a correlation. But since you have not provided any affirmative evidence for that correlation, the alleged correlation is unsupported and hence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 19:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi! I should have put more thought into my reply earlier on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Soviet War; sorry about that. — Matt Crypto 16:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. No offense taken at all. Best, Hydriotaphia 16:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thx for your comments there! I really have no idea what can be cut out without damaging the article... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accident at WP:FAC

There was an editing accident (probably MySQL error or cut-n-paste error) on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that resulting in the page contents being duplicated. A number of edits had occurred by the time it was noticed, but I tried to preserve everything while removing duplicate material. Just in case, mosey on over and check if your vote stuck. If you have any questions, respond on my talk page. Thanks!

-- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 20:52, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Court citation

Hello:

See the court citation talk page about why I changed back the citations to the correct state court styles. The highest courts of California and New York are very proud of their unique citation styles, even if all the other state judiciaries consider them to be crazy, and even if it drives all the lawyers under their jurisdiction nuts. My California-based law school has a lot of professors from Cornell, Columbia, and NYU (all refugees from New York's awful weather). So we read a lot of cases from both New York and California, and we see a lot of examples of both states' styles.

--Coolcaesar 06:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the correction. Hydriotaphia 07:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

I notice you added Gonzales v. Raich to this category. The category has been voted for deletion but I am trying to save it. Please come to Votes for undeletion to express your view. David | Talk 17:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Signpost

In the future, please direct blog entries and such to Tip Line...we try not to add content to articles after they've been published, so that everyone who views the Signpost early in the week doesn't miss new entries. Thanks for mentioning it, though...I'll tell Catherine about it for next week. Ral315 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Template for major Mormonism articles

I have been thinking that Portal:Mormonism might be more appropriate than a template since it is such a complicated structure - and would be able to handle the nuances. I have gathered a list of articles. If you have any ideas on how a template on major articles might work and how it would be used in those articles I would welcome the suggestions. Trödel|talk 23:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

After some editing Portugal from the Restoration to the 1755 Earthquake (now moved to History of Portugal (1578-1777) has considerably improved. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wallace Stevens

From reading the comments on the talk page, I surmised that you seem to know a good deal about Wallace Stevens. I have always been enromously fond of his profound philosophical style, his exaltation of the imagination to a subject of poetic obsevations in itself and, of course, his beautiful sytle. I was planning to post his poems (as many as possible) on the Wikisource, but I'm uncertain about the copyright status. The works were published after 1923 and were copyrighted anew (I think) by Holly Stevens in 1963.

Do you know if any of them (and which ones) are public domain or not?? Thanks --Lacatosias 14:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the Stevens page. It seems to receive more than its fair share of vandalism. The page can always be improved and would benefit from elaboration and refinement, but it seems to just get whacked at instead. homanid

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Secured transactions in the United States, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Animal House

I'm not even the one that started reverting this character's irrelevant paragraph about some guy name Leo Strauss. I don't know how much validity his citation has, but it seems to me like a point-of-view push, and the fact that the guy won't discuss it with anybody supports the vandalism suspicion. However, I've never turned anyone in for vandalism, so I don't really know how to do it. However, someone else helped out on the George Reeves page that someone kept messing with, so maybe they could help here also. Wahkeenah 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to know - we have the same situation with the same editor and the same paragraph over in the Toga party article (check out the discussion page, it's longer than the article because of this issue). We asked for a mediator's assistance, and the mediator has asked for an explanation from Jacrosse, but he is not responding. J. Van Meter 11:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Neocons

I am willing to ask for comments or seek mediation. Glad to follow your lead on this, since I appear to be a lightening rod on this page. Thanks for seeking a reasonable editing compromise.--Cberlet 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Jmabel]
You are, or were at some point, involved in editing the neoconservatism article. Due to Jacrosse's continued inability to dialogue, I'm requesting mediation. I thought you would want to know this. Hydriotaphia 05:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[end copied]

I'm not one of the people authorized to mediate, and I certainly have my own views both on neoconservatism and on Jacrosse, so I am probably not the person to help out here. I would strongly suggest that you approach the Mediation Committee with this matter. But, in any event, mediation can only take place if all parties agree to it, and I suspect from past experience that Jacrosse has no interest in mediation, only in getting his way. - Jmabel | Talk 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly do so. I apologize for misunderstanding you: I've done a lot of informal mediation on topics where I can honestly claim neutrality. - Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this mediation is successful. Aside from this specific article, the editor Jacrosse routinely avoids discussing or even explaining his edits unless they are removed. -Will Beback 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I support the mediation, I do not think I should be a participant. I have not been involved with the particular article much. -Will Beback 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made the relevant edits to the mediation page. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my support to your mediation attempt. I do wonder if Jacrosse needs to take a little break from editing for a while. --Duncan 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I had become the issue. The point was to make the article better. Oddly, I usually like the work of Lind. :-) --Cberlet 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have now referred User:Jacrosse to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. Let me know if you would like to be a party. You can find the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jacrosse. If you wish to, please append to the "Statement by DuncanBCS" heading. We must keep our response to 500 words or less, or it may be removed without warning by the Committee clerks.

I've added my two cents to the arbitration, though I'm basically restating a lot of what's already been said. So far so good--it's 3-0 accept. Best of luck on the Neocon article. --metzerly 04:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PCP

• Object. This article just never seems to get any better. I've copyedited it several times, have gone through and erased POV parts at least twice, and yet when I return to look at the article 3 or 6 months later it's still no good. It's ungrammatical, often incomprehensible, incompetently written and often biased. I'm sorry to be harsh, but my patience has been very badly strained. I would suggest that, with all due respect, Afonso Silva take a break from editing this article. Again, I'm sorry if this sounds disrespectful, but the article is nowhere near featured article status. Hydriotaphia 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

-> Now that you've had your disrespectful comment, could you start being objective, for example, pointing the NPOV sections? I never reverted an edit by you and I never changed your wording after a copyedit, so, if the article has a bad grammar you are guilty too. I just think you are biased against the article and that's the reason you are unable to have a coherent objection to made, I just hear you saying something about grammar and bias and bla bla bla. About the incomprehensible parts, I really understand that having a legal communist Party in a country is an incomprehensible concept to the common McCarthyist american guy, but I can make an effort explaining you that. By the way, your patiente is easily strained, as the article was a FA candidate for only 3 times in 8 months, I can only suggest medical treatment. Kind regards. Afonso Silva 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry that you're offended. I want to point out, however, that I never attacked you personally. I do think that you may want to take a break from editing the article; I think I'm being reasonable when I say that you seem a bit touchy about it. I continue to believe that it shouldn't be featured, due to the deficiencies I outlined above. Hydriotaphia 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for offending you on the FAC nomination page. You were right: I am impatient. My comments were too harsh. I've started to make edits to the PCP page again. I have nothing against Communists nor against the PCP; I just want to make the article fair and comprehensible. Best wishes, and again, my sincere apologies. Hydriotaphia 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I was a bit harsh too, discussions are just like that. Thanks for your work on the article, I've clarified the sections where hidden comments were present, if that wasn't enough, just put the comments there again. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to spot non NPOV sentences and sometimes the contributions of another editor are the only way to eliminate biased content. The word "structure" means a group of members that work together because they live in the same town or work in the same factory. I've changed it to "organization", I don't know if that's correct, but that's what we call it here "estrutura" or "organização". I've also clarified that MUD was made illegal, I thought that was obvious as the PCP was already illegal since the late 1920s, but it is fixed. If you think another section is still biased just edit it, I agree with the changes you've made. If another section is still bad written and you can fix, that would be great. Thanks again! Afonso Silva 13:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks for your comments on the peer review of the article and sorry for only answering now. Currently, I'm working on another article, but I'll soon finish it and start working on the article. I agree with your suggestions, I'll short and move the principles section, about the electoral results I think it is better to make a paragraph about it and keeping a smaller table with only the recent elections. I'll also try to make the history section smaller. Thanks again for your help. Regards! Afonso Silva 13:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Walace Stevens Poll

This is to invite you to respond to the editors poll on the Wallace Stevens talk page at Talk:Wallace_Stevens#Editors_Poll. You have either contributed to the talk page or have made a substantial contribution to the encyclopedia page within the past three months. Thank you. --Halcatalyst 01:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Emerson

I hope I'm doing this right. I'm new to Wikipedia. I think the Emerson thing is fine now as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cott12 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

US Bill of Rights

Back, and better than ever. You voted on the last one, come see the improvements. Kaisershatner 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is such an unbelievable pain to go through all those diffs. I can't believe the amount of work you put in. My statement is up at Evidence.—thames 01:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making a great start! I will make a beginning, but it's a day or two's work... ;-)

--Duncan 10:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse

This case has been closed. The final decision is in the case page at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing {{Latter-day Saints}} for deletion

Hi - the template {{Latter-day Saints}} appears to duplicate the purpose and functionality of {{LDS}} - I am going to ask that it, {{Latter-day Saints}}, be deleted - but wanted to notify all the contributors in case they object. Trödel 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you still here?

Hi there! I've noticed that you stopped contributing recently. I hope you return. The article on the History of the Portuguese Communist Party is now considered a good article, in part thanks to the edits you made when its content was still in the main article. That's why I decided to look for what you were doing. Cheers! Afonso Silva 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Morrison

If you have suggestions for improving the writing style and factuality, that's good. Let me know what they are.Jimmuldrow 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment: the Court did not hold that the states are "sovereign" in law enforcement, whatever that would mean

Your correction: "it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." (quote from Rehnquist) ???Jimmuldrow 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More questions about Morrison

Your comment:eliminating original research; Cruikshank cited only very briefly and in passing; also erasing statement of opinon

Cruikshank was referred to so that Rehnquist could quote from it. Look again. It was more than just a reference.

As to to the original research, I presume you're referring to this: Another similarity is that like the Cruikshank decision, it applied the Equal Protection Clause only to state action, not to state inaction

The "original" research is from the Wikipedia article on Cruikshank.

You also deleted: Justice Rehnquist said "if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder." Like rape, murder affects interstate commerce.

I paraphrased a little bit, but not much: The full quote is: "if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder or any other type of violence since gender-motivated violence, as a subset of all violent crime, is certain to have lesser economic impacts than the larger class of which it is a part."

???????????????????

Why I need an explanation of your comments on Morrison

You made the following comment - All I can say is that, not having looked at this article for a while, and returning to it only now, I am deeply disappointed. The changes made since April have been highly inaccurate, for substantially the reasons given by User:68.122.9.232, and the quality of the writing itself is, I must say, very low. Hydriotaphia 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd put up with ego problems if there's at least a good justification for them. But your comments require explanation.Jimmuldrow 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As to the factuality and prose of the old version of Morrison

In addition to bad formatting, as to the factuality and prose of the old version, what did "additionally punishing criminals for the faults of the judicial system lacks the required proportionality." mean? That we should feel sorry for Morrison? Or that he was in danger of being punished too much? The proportionality thing was about punishing Morrison instead of the state according to Rehnquist, although Rehnquist had another problem with that. So what was so great about the old version? Jimmuldrow 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Raich

I've noticed you editing Morrison so I'm guessing you have some specific knowledge of US law, as opposed to my general knowledge. Would you be able to help out on Raich? I believe the page is quite biased atm and at the very least is pretty short/incomplete. Thanks. Psychobabble 06:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Got your message

I have no plans in the near future to mess with Morrison, aside from a Sandbox. Your changes were a large improvement on what was ther before.Jimmuldrow 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rehnquist

I wonder if you might be interested in trying your hand at editing a portion of the William Rehnquist page. In particular, I think the section on his tenure as Chief Justice is a bit wordy.Ferrylodge 07:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message at my talk page about this. Good luck with the bar exam! I'll watch the Rehnquist page to see if you can make it more concise. I'm sure that Rehnquist would do the same for the Hydriotaphia article.  :)Ferrylodge 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Thompson (pastor)

A tag has been placed on Kevin Thompson (pastor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Put a "hold on" comment on the page and post why you don't think it should be deleted. Sorry, but I still don't think the guy deserves his own article. --Bookworm857158367 14:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The "original research" in Morrison was the Court's, not mine

All the stuff in quotes is from the Court opinions. And this isn't the first time you've made repeated incorrect corrections and seemingly deliberate mistakes. What's up with that?Jimmuldrow 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hydriotaphia for your efforts at the United States v. Morrison article. After you left, I did a bunch of edits, and they seem to be sticking. It looks like a good, neutral, informative, enyclopedic article now. You made that possible.Ferrylodge 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is a highly unusual event. The questioning was wide-ranging, and included judicial pay, televising oral arguments, and sentencing guidelines. Oh, and one more thing. Senator Specter heavily criticized the Court's decision in one particular case: United States v. Morrison. Specter used that decision to argue for cameras in the Court, but Justice Kennedy called that argument a "non sequiter," and he defended the Court's rationale regarding an absence of interstate commerce. Makes you wonder who may have been editing the Wikipedia page on Morrison!

As for cranks, and others who may have less than optimal editorial skills, not backing down seems the only way to deal with it, IMHO. Anyway, here's a link to the article about today's Senate hearing.Ferrylodge 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kimel, Morrison, and Garrett

As you will see, there are a bunch of recent edits to the Morrison, Garrett, and Kimel articles. Generally speaking, I hope we can continue working toward a solution, and that you will stick with it. We could ask for some sort of help at this point, but it might be useful to try to narrow the issues first. Which do you prefer? Generally speaking, I have not objected very much to rambling descriptions of cases, as long as they are accurate. So, for example, I haven't objected very much to long discussions of Boerne and Lopez in the Morrison article, as long as they are accurate. Do you think we would have better luck insisting on accuracy as opposed to conciseness? Do you think we should seek help now or later?Ferrylodge 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation sounds okay to me. I've never done that kind of thing, have you?

P.S. It would be easier for me if we discuss at a single talk page, either mine or yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 07:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey, good job on the RfC. Your comments there are very accurate, and hopefully will lead to improvements. Thanks.Ferrylodge 20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not supposed to edit the RfC. But perhaps there are other policies involved here, like NPA, CIVIL, OWN, and NPOV. I didn't particularly appreciate being called "hysterical." The user seems to have an agenda against a certain former member of the Court.Ferrylodge 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's OK for you to edit the RfC. I agree there are other policies involved here, and that Jimmuldrow has something against Rehnquist. Hydriotaphia 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added some stuff, especially to the "Evidence of disputed behavior." Hopefully it will be helpful. Thanks again for getting the RfC started. Feel free to edit the stuff I added.Ferrylodge 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, fellas.Jimmuldrow 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jim. Is there something you'd like to add? Hydriotaphia 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Article-Specific Issues

At the RfC, I just removed some article-specific issues that I had raised. These can be restored if Jim insists on these points again (or if you think I should restore them now). I guess that --- since this is a user RfC instead of an article RfC --- it might be best to leave these items out unless they become issues again in the respective articles.Ferrylodge 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your removal seems fine. After all, the main concern isn't so much the particular disputes that we both seem to have with Jim, but rather the fact that Jim seems so impervious to rational discussion. Hydriotaphia 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hydrio, I responded to your question about "States' Rights" at my talk page.Ferrylodge 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hydrio, how do things stand now with Jim? It seems like things have settled down quite a bit.Ferrylodge 22:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Unfortunately, however, he still believes that there is some connection between Sandoval and Garrett, and seems unwilling to engage in discussion on that point. Otherwise, though, things seem manageable. In related news, a recent comment on the RfC page for Jim asserts that on the Garrett talk page I made "efforts to engage in original research about a connection to Sandoval," when, of course, my entire point was that no such connection could be made without original research. I mean, I don't want to sound petty or self-pitying, but this is precisely the sort of thing that makes me feel that Wikipedia is a hopeless endeavor. But enough of my complaints. Hydriotaphia 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put a comment over at the RfC on Garrett and Sandoval, though I didn't have time to include diffs. I know this is frustrating, but for better or worse Wikipedia seems to be the wave of the future. If anyone searches on the internet for Sandoval or Garrett, the first hit they're going to get is Wikipedia. You're really doing a good job here. I hope it's not interfering too much with your studies for the bar exam. Cheers.Ferrylodge 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the bar was last week, and it's all done (finally). Hydriotaphia 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope there were lots of questions about Garrett, Sandoval, Morrison, Boerne, and Equal Protection.  :-) Good luck with the test results!Ferrylodge 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)