User talk:Chaser: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	14 March 2006 – 19 June 2006; ; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:28, 11 July 2006

Note to posters: Let's try to keep conversations together and easily readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may also refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Thanks. Kchase02 (T)

Re: Clinton v. New York

I think this PCA case is in at least decent shape for now. I would very much like to have Postdlf to add his section on signing statements that he mentioned on the discussion page, but in looking through the article now, I am not sure if I can add anything further. Let's move on to the next one. RidG Talk 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC rework

Sorry about delays, real life getting in the way. Didn't even have time to do my Signpost contribution this week. Will get back to you when I can do a proper write up. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to message you. No hurry.--Kchase02 T 05:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Hamdan

Hey sorry about that, I keep forgetting to sign back in...keeps signing me out :/, but yeah I try to add what I can do...I need to learn the whole tags and what not :(. Flyintothesky

No worries. Sounds good. I'm not sure what you mean about learning the tags, but let me know if I can help you with something.--Kchase02 T 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Coburnpharr04

Hey, nice work on the Hamdan page. I'll try to work on the Alito dissent later. I wanted to ask you if the information on the Justice Thomas dissent it's accurate. It says that this is the first time that Thomas reads a dissent from the bench. I think that info is wrong, even though it has source. I clearly remember hearing the bench opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart back in 2000 and remember hearing Thomas delivering his dissent. If you have time, try to check oyez.com for the audio of the bench opinion, 'cause I think it would be a great mistake if we keep that statement regarding Thomas on the hamdan article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that. Thanks for telling me.--Kchase02 T 05:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources didn't indicate precisely that, so I reworded it (made it more ambigious). You may be remembering Thomas piping up in oral arguments. He definitely has done that, though rarely. I don't know whether he has ever read an opinion from the bench.--Kchase02 T 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice...

It seems we have shared intentions in helping others, and I do admire your kindly tone -- something I'd do well to adopt (and not only in Wikipedia... :-)
To keep the ball rolling, I've added a comment on the Smadar Levi page. I also like your To Do List and may adopt something of the sort. Just to let you know, I'd be pleased to collaborate with you any time! -- Best regards, Deborahjay 09:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind message. Given our disparate interests, I don't know that we'd ever cross paths on articles, but I'd be happy to work with you on assisting another user or what not. The to-do list is very helpful. I'd be glad to add one to your user page if you so desire.--Kchase02 T 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what I wrote above: helping a recalcitrant fellow editor can be a Herculean task (by my standards); rather than give in to the temptation of "unwatching" the relevant page, I spent a good hour writing point-for-point advice and summing up my assessment. HTH/FWIW, as we say. Otherwise, my User page is on the verge of a major redesign employing subpages and headers for navigation, so I'd be pleased to get back to you when I'm ready to place a to-do list and other goodies. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 01:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sam Phelps

While I appreciate your concern, you have to understand that it is rather difficult to find sources for a local celebrity. I will do my best to improve the page over the next 5 days to try to keep it in accordence to wikipedia's policys. Thanks you for your concern. Kjs Talk

I do understand that. Prod takes five days, so if you can't find it, you can always post a note asking the deleting admin to userfy it (move it out of article space and into a subpage in your userspace) until you can find sources.--Kchase02 T 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:GWB

Hi Kchase02 - what angered me was not your concern about the state of the article, but the idea of reverting to a far-worse version. Is that at all logical? Obviously no. I NEVER claimed that this article is done, which means there are many problems yet to iron out - I know there are many details missing, some POV, unverified info. There is work to be done.

Consider my bold-ized message "JOIN THE PEER REVIEW." If you think I did this the wrong way by not talking about the edits beforehand, you can change the situation now. You can help me by voicing your concerns in detail, and give me ideas on how to go about improving this article. That's why I started a peer review - I don't own this article. But that doesn't mean I have to take babysteps on improving it.

Your (and couple of other people's) comments hurt me especially because the PR hasn't attracted many contributors. How many people have been candid and factual in criticizing the article, and given ideas on how to improve it? I'm trying to invite people to help, but it hasn't worked well. You can change that. This Fire Burns.....Always 18:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Colon Trabotto

I have removed the prod tag. The web site you mention is a reproduction of the Jewish Encyclopedia, which was published over 100 years ago hence is PD. For ease of reference, please reply on the talk page of that article.--Runcorn 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response at Talk:Joseph Colon Trabotto

Shadowclan

Thank you very much for the small edit on the Shadowclan page. It was speedily deleted before and that was my second try. Please let me know if there are any other changes that need to be made to keep it from deletion. I'll be working on it little by little to clean it up, specially the links. Bagginator 10:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You are welcome.--Kchase02 T 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

band

Looking back at my last messages, it looks as if i'm being bloody-minded. That was not my intention, and I take your point about published albums. I will shut up now. Not trying to be awkward.--Anthony.bradbury 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response on user's talk--Kchase02 T 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.--Anthony.bradbury 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Portal

Hi - I'm afraid you misunderstand me. I was angered over that brief debate, but you need not be anything but forthright when talking to me - I have respect for you. If you want to oppose that portal, do it because it would be the honest and right thing to do.

Yes I know that portal exists, but it was my belief that the U.S. presidency has a vast amount of material, over areas such as history, tradition, political analysis, American culture and heritage and international events/politics, that gives it a different scope of its own. For one, I think the U.S. government is too vast - how would one display Gettysburg Address as a select article, given that its about the "US Government" - it was a uniquely presidential moment of leadership, outside the bureaucracy, constitution, law, institutions that make the USG. Taking BD2412's suggestion, I expanded the scope from just the presidency to the executive branch.

I'm beginning to think my original purpose is getting lost, so its ok if this portal idea does not obtain consensus. This Fire Burns.....Always 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Welcome back

I'm on a trip right now, but after that I'll remove the things about me leaving. ForestH2 logged out. ForestH2

Thanks!

Thanks Kchase02.

What an experience. I submitted the first draft of my article at 5:56 and it was nominated for deletion at 7:32. That must be some kind of record.

Anyhow, thanks for the tip. I posted the code you suggested.

~Halle Leah

I mislisted an AfD you voted in

I listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fertility Retreat imperfectly. I should not have included the following nominations within it:

I have now, on advice, left Randine Lewis in the original nomination and broken the other two out. This message is to ensure that you see this and have the opportunity to comment upon the other nominations. I have sent it to you and th eothers who had already commented on the original bundled AfD only.

My apologies for the confusion.

Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for all the help. and yes I am interested in the Supreme Court cases, so the link you provided was helpful...

Infobox

If I add infoboxes to the Supreme Court cases on the list of cases without them how do I remove them from the list thereof...