Jump to content

User talk:Foofighter20x/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Foofighter20x, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  The Ogre 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice!

Great job adding the flags to the Civil War battles! It gets a bit confusing with the changing of the flags of the two nations throughout the course of the war, but you seem to have it down perfectly. Keep up the great work! :) Jmlk17 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't agree with the flag additions, though I'll not war over it. My take is that the flags are merely decorative. If so, then they should be out, per the milhistproject guideline. I believe that's where Hal was going. I'll go so far as grant the flags at the top of the ACW menu were largely decorative, but had the value of drawing the eye to a template which usually lives collapsed in pagespace. BusterD (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:


Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand! Please don't take the message harshly. Yuu are doing quite a nice job by the way! Just don't forget edit summaries! Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ACW Menu template

I'm sorry if my actions and summaries have come across as argumentative. I endorsed your changes (except the flags). If you could look at talk archives on the template, you can see that we've covered a bit of this ground before (and explained why we've adopted this odd but long-time procedure of talk consensus before posting to the menu itself), and the current version is a result. Stable, tight, and embracing most major page spaces. Never complete, and that's why Hal and I welcome discussion of worthy additions, but there's only so much room before the template becomes unusable. As it regards VDE, that's also covered in the archive. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle Article Icons

I've received a few responses where the authors say they actually likes the additions. Should be on my talk page. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do see one author's comments. (I won't see many because I wrote the majority of the significant battle and campaign articles myself.) Look, I don't want to get into a long edit war with you because you have obviously spent a lot of effort hitting a large number of articles and I really don't care all that much about the trivial aspects of Wikipedia, such as categories, information boxes, little decorative devices, etc., as long as the information in the article is factually correct and I am not subjected to a lot of busy work. I have stated my concern about the flags already, in that they violate the military history task force guidelines and I think they are simply a waste of bandwidth and editorial time. However, I will yield to your fervor on this issue if you agree to the following stipulations:
  1. For consistency, put the flags into every single ACW battle article that has an infobox. That way, other random editors will not find it necessary to add different flags based on different standards into the articles you miss.
  2. Ensure that the flags are correct for the time of the battle in question.
  3. Use the flags only for the combatant forces at the national level -- USA and CSA national flags. Do not use battle flags for individual armies, corps, or state regiments.
  4. Do not use flags for the commanders. (One of my fears is that rabid editors will start adding state flags to decorate the names of the generals in the boxes and then we will get into arguments about whether that means his state of birth, the state where most of his regiments were formed, etc.)
  5. Keep all of those articles in your watch list and make sure other editors don't screw up your flags, rather than expecting me to do it. If you want to have a widespread impact on hundreds of articles, make a commitment to maintain the quality of those articles after you are done. Otherwise, leave them be.
Do you agree? Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the message left on my talk page: Agreed. If you'll notice, I've done almost all of 1861, 1863, and 1865. I've corrected some where another has ran with my idea but used the wrong flag. I'll keep an eye on this. One more question, however. Where it lists combatants, do you think it's a good idea to go in and change them all from "United States of America" to "United States" (which then links to "Union (American Civil War)")? Foofighter20x (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, same question with "Confederate State os America"... Shorten that to Confederate States or Confederacy?? Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is sort of a tricky one and I know that the articles are not consistent now. In theory, I would have suggested United States of America Versus Confederate States of America because those are the actual names of the entities. However, the article name for the former is actually just United States, so that seems like an imbalance of names because the term Confederate States is not very widely used. Also, a small number of people object to linking to the main United States article instead of the Union article. As long as you intend to make them consistent, my preference would be:
United States of America (Union), Confederate States of America
or
USA (Union), CSA
I hope that when you are making all of these bulk changes you are being careful to evaluate the articles for very recent vandalism. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
For your excellent work with the Civil War battle articles. It's nice to see the correct flags and abbreviations! Keep up the great work! Jmlk17 06:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Endorse - Good work, I'll admit. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your cut-and-paste move mangled Taxing and Spending Clause edit history.

Please do not EVER do a "cut and paste" page move again. You destroyed the articles edit history, which is a violation of the GFDL. If you can not move a page because of an existing page at the target location, contact an admin. bd2412 T 18:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag for the Missouri State Guard?

I'm neutral on the matter of flags in templates although I think they enhance rather than detract. There were several early war battles fought primarily by the Missouri State Guard. They used various flags, but the MSG commander, Sterling Price, had specified one using the Missouri state seal in gold on blue merino. This was periodically referred to as "the bear flag" by witnesses. Apparently, none survived the war. Could you take a look at some examples on the web and try your hand at providing an image for the MSG article and battle templates? Thanks! Red Harvest (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Jacobite Succession

A tag has been placed on Template:Jacobite Succession requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:USRepSuccessionBox changes

Image:DC_Masonic_Layout.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DC_Masonic_Layout.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jury nullification

Dear editor Foofighter20X: I added some comments on the talk page for the above-referenced article regarding the difference between "jury nullification" (which is part of the U.S. legal system) and "arguing the law to the jury" (which as a general rule is not). Can you check on this? I haven't read the texts of the older cases you added, so I don't know if there's really a conflict or not. Yours, Famspear (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxing and Spending Clause class assessment

Hello Foofighter20x, I reviewed the article and I think that it can be assessed to a class above start class. I left some comments at Talk:Taxing and Spending Clause/Comments. With other people's input I think we can assess the article to a B or Good Article status.EECavazos (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Regressive tax

Replied on my talk. Thanks Morphh (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: United States congressional apportionment

I protected the page in hopes of seeing discussion take place.. though I haven't really seen much. Wizardman 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Appointments to the Court

I'm not sure your wording is very good: "administration" is unclear. Does the "Truman Administration" only cover 49-53? No, it refers to the entire period from the death of Roosevelt to the inauguration of Eisenhower. The "William Henry Harrison administration" covers the days when he was president, and nothing else. So how is "entire administration" better than "full term"?

I guess the problem is that we are contrasting serving a full presidential term (the other exceptions all died during their first and only term), and making an appointment sometime during the administration. Perhaps: "Carter is the only President who served at least one full term but made no appointments to the Court during his Administration"? Magidin (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The term administration applies to the entirety of the office holder's tenure. No one called it the first and second Clinton administrations. No one says FDR died in his fourth administration. The term is thus more useful as it is more encompassing of the entirety of the time in office, as opposed to term simply meaning a four-year block of time. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Ehr, that's precisely my point (that administration applies to the entirety of the office holder's tenure). The problem is that the line you wrote is: Carter is the only President to have served out an entire administration without making an appointment to the Court. Well, Harrison served out an entire administration without making an appointment either, as did Taylor and Johnson, because by definition every president has served out "an entire administration". (There is one president that did have a first and second administrations, but that is irrelevant to this point). So the new line, as written, is not clearer, it is in fact incorrect. "Serving out an entire administration" makes sense for appointees (Secretaries, etc), not for presidents, because by definition they serve out entire administrations. That was why I suggested that the appropriate distinction is that Carter served at least one full term without making an appointment during his administration, whereas the other presidents who did not make any appointments during their administrations did not serve a full term. Magidin (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the average person is going to consider cases where a president has died in office to really have completed his administration. True, it ends when the man dies, but his admin is typically going to be thought of as ending prematurely due to that death. As such, most won't consider it an entire administration. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Still, the statement as written is at least potentially confusing: it is incorrect on its face. Do you have an objection to my proposed alternative? (To wit: Carter is the only President who served at least one full term but made no appointments to the Court during his entire administration"). Magidin (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, Carter is not the only President to serve a full term without an appointment. FDR's first term falls into that category; so does the first term of James Monroe; so does Bill Clinton's second term; so does Woodrow Wilson's second term. How about: Carter is the only President who completed the entirety of his tenure without making an appointment to the Court. ?? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The wording you propose suffers from the same problem as the current one: the literal reading is false, since it also applies to the other three presidents who made no appointments ("tenure" in this case would refer to "time in office"). I confess that I do not understand why you bring up these examples again, given that they are explicitly excluded with the wording I gave: "made no appointment during his entire administration" excludes Clinton, Wilson, and FDR, who made appointments at some point during their administration; it excludes everyone but Carter, precisely the point. Is it that you dislike using both "term" and "administration" in the same sentence? I could see how that might lead to some potential confusion. Perhaps then Carter is the only President who served at least four years, yet made no appointment to the Court during his administration. ? Magidin (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
How about: Carter is the only President who completed the entirety of the time in office for which he was elected without making an appointment to the Court. Should fix the problem. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
And as a point of fact, tenure, with respect to an elected office with a fixed term, means the fixed term in academia, not the literal time the person held the office if the fixed term was not completed. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I think most people would understand "tenure" in this context as his time in office; we don't usually speak of VPs who become president as completing the tenure of the previous president. Your newest wording is accurate, at any rate, though probably not what I would choose. But since you would not choose the wording I would, as we can see, let's go with your latest. Magidin (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your response

Your response on my talk page is less than friendly. It is not my job to point out every talk page discussion to every user who is editing a related article. Some of your wording is also a borderline personal attack and won't be tolerated. You can strike out those parts on my talk page if you want to show other users you have some civility and know when you made a mistake on wording on talk pages. Otherwise, I'll just do it myself. CTJF83Talk 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FooFighter: I apologize. I should have mentioned that *before* making the edit, to avoid stepping on your toes. Any breach of etiquette was unintended. Thank you for your understanding, though, and please keep up your good work on law-related articles! Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, Non Curat Lex has started a discussion on the wording of good behavior, and I have responded to it here. Note that this is the only time I will let you know about any future discussion about this or any subject. That is what your Watchlist is for. CTJF83Talk 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
SCOTUS is on my watch page, so I already know. As for the AJ page, it wasn't. All I'm asking is that if there is a consensus reached on something, you should point it out to the person instead of going back and forth in a pointless edit war. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is hardly a "war" - at least it shouldn't be; but you're right, you wouldn't have had to quickly revert to protect your position if I had given you a proper headsup via the talk page, and for that I'm sorry. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know it's not a war. Just a good old wiki adage/saw... :) Foofighter20x (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
FooFighter: Can we move, so to speak, our discussion of modifications to the article which I have proposed, to the talk page for the article? I posted a message there, and I hope you will address it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I've been hardened by my past on-wiki experience with this issue, but I appreciate your yielding to my taste. Where I come from, one good turn deserves another, so if you ever need me, drop a message on my talk page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Disfranchisement v disenfranchisement

First, other dictionaries would disagree with you. While Disfranchisement is older of the two terms, disenfranchisement is the far more common use of the phrase. Per WP:MOS it should therefore is should be disenfranchisement. You're welcome to change the links back though! -- Electiontechnology (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Foofighter20x. Disenfranchisement is by far, the more common word. Please stop changing it to disfranchisement in various wikipedia articles and titles. I happened to have a couple pages on my watchlist. I also read your discussion with Electiontechnology at User talk:Electiontechnology. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, I sort of already had stopped last night. ET above already changed them back, and as I told him, I wasn't going to go back and change them. All I've done since is posted something to discussion so more people than just him and me make any decision. Like I said on those pages, since it's a term of art (read: legal term), I'd prefer the WP editors who are actually lawyers be the ones who decide this. Thanks for keeping up, though. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CNN article

That article definitely reads as if CNN read Electoral College (United States) before posting that article, especially the reference to Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment. Thanks for the link. SMP0328. (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wm Cushing

How interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 10:24 21 November 2008 (UTC).

Reasonable Person

So far, I like what you've done with the article. I made a few formatting and grammatical fixes to the article, but as it stands now, it gives a pretty good overview of the subject. One thing I would like to see, if you can find them, is some sources for the Reasonable bystander section (about contracts). --Eastlaw (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks for the message, and nice work. I made a few changes to the subpart about Negligence Per Se to conform to what I think the sources will support - I don't know if it conforms to the main article (which is now linked in), but that main article, which is a stub, can and should be worked on to make sure it conforms to, uhm, reality. Let me know if you need any secondary source research done. So far I don't see anything in need of changing. Also, reasonable person is now wikilinked from "standard of care," so more readers will come see your work. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

fighting bunches

Thank you for fixing the layout on Oregon. How did you know how to do that? (Perhaps that would make a good edit summary in the future?) —EncMstr (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other editor used it on a page I watch like a Hawk about maybe a month ago or so. Been using it ever since... Foofighter20x (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A working link is WP:BUNCH. —EncMstr (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Template changes

"Thanks for asking"? Don't you think an editor who wants to move away from the standardised format for election templates (which is used by hundreds of templates) should have to ask if it's a good idea before making the change? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937

I'm still in the middle of my marathon of rewriting Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. I aim to have it done by New Year's. I also aim to submit it for WP:FA when I'm done. Any other inputs than MOS stuff? Foofighter20x (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just doing quicky, "drive-by" edits right now; I'm not very available for significant editing or advice. But one thing I noticed that I was too much in a hurry to fix is that many dates in the article still use link-based formatting, like [[March 9]], [[1937]] or [[February 6]]. This used to be part of the MOS:DATE standard, but has been repealed in favor of recommending, in order:
  • Same formatting style throughout the article.
  • No links around dates in prose.
  • Country-based style for country-specific articles.
Since this is about a U.S. bill, all dates in the prose should have their links removed and made to conform to the U.S. standard of "January 1, 2000" (or "January 1" for partial dates). I haven't reviewed the relevant MOS pages on dates within footnoted citations, but you probably don't need to tweak those. (Some are required to be in particular formats by the citation templates used.) Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent effort. I have started working through it for prose and style issues. The sooner we can get it to the FA, the better, esp. given how soon the 5th approaches. Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Foofighter20x/Archive_1&oldid=1143005999"