User talk:Dominic/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re: Chiropractic medicine

Hi Dmcdevit. I received this article onto my desk, and due to my scientific/conventional medicine bias I have returned it to yours. I did have a brief look to find someone more appropriate within the taskforce and there wasn't anyone particularly forthcoming. Would you mind having another look for somebody to take on the task? Thanks... Oliver Keenan 14:22, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week - Culture of Hong Kong

Congratulations! Culture of Hong Kong has been chosen Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week. Please help improve it to featured article standard. — Instantnood 21:22, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

AID project

On this week's Article Improvement Drive voting, an article you supported was selected. This week we focus on improving Antigua and Barbuda and Criticisms of War on Terrorism to featured article status. Hope you can help. 119 01:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CSB articles

Hi Dmcdevit, The articles you added to the WikiProjectCSBTasks template are definitely in need of some attention. The way the history of Tripoli apparently stops in 1911 is kind of disturbing. When you have a moment you may want to add the articles to the Open Tasks page; otherwise, they'll disappear from CSB forever when somebody rotates other articles in. Cheers, BanyanTree 06:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, done--Dmcdevit 19:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are going well beyond the call of duty with your addition of all the other orphans on the template. Nice work. - BanyanTree 03:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
CSB's a great cause, I'm glad you've done so much work on it! --Dmcdevit 03:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Removing defunct or inactive COTWs from the template makes it harder for the projects to gain an audience. Why not make a seperate template or category for inactive COTWs so the main template can be cleaned up a bit without putting the projects at a disadvantage? Mgm|(talk) 10:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me.--Dmcdevit 16:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Hi, Thanks for your message. I am slowly getting a hang of wikipedia, and hope to contribute regularly in the next few years. Infact, I have just built a personal site where I wnated to document information that I come across. With Wikipedia, I will be able to share it with the world, and enrich my fields of interest further.

I am hoping to build some collaborative work on issues relating to health, nutrition and education. Can you share with me your experiene on how you went about collaborative projects?


Vivekdse 11:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


See my talk page regarding your question to me about the rambot. -- RM 16:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

And again. -- RM 18:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


See that page and Wikipedia talk:Typo/capitalization. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Beland 14:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah well... At least it's all cleared up now.--Dmcdevit 16:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Bruyn Hasbrouck

Don't jump the gun and put a cleanup tag on an article after it's 9 minutes old. Perhaps next time you ought to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that someone is in the process of working on it, nitwit. —ExplorerCDT 03:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • P.S. I finished it 3 minutes after you put the cleanup tag on the article. Geesh, you must have been triggerhappy. —ExplorerCDT 03:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Removing comments on a talk page (even if it is yours) just because they happen to be negative and not complimentary is akin to vandalism here, Dmcdevit, and it smacks of bad faith and someone desperate to hide bad press. Respond to my comments, learn from them, straighten up and fly right. —ExplorerCDT 03:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, you just did what I apparently did. I had no intention of removing it, as you can see by the fact that I responded to you (your talk page). I was about to restore the mistakenly deleted when I see your further message here. I don't understand why you are so combative, its not as if I have ever done anything to you before this mistake; let's move on.--Dmcdevit 03:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I should give you the benefit of having "mistakenly" deleted it. (note:sarcasm). I'm combative to whosoever decides it prudent jump the gun and without first doing their homework. So far, You've given me no reason to apologize for calling you a nitwit. —ExplorerCDT 03:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If that's what you get off on, I'll try not to let the mean words on the screen penetrate my thin skin. My you are short-tempered.--Dmcdevit 03:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Still haven't given me a reason to apologize, but I hope for your sake you learned from this. —ExplorerCDT 03:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I have, maybe you should reread my messages. Btw, I find it laughable that you tell me that I smack of bad faith, (citing the "assume good faith" page) while making a personal attack. I'm done being first confused and then annoyed at your comments, it's quite amusing now. Try not to condescend to me as I am not a newcomer or an idiot (I know you'll want to make some sarcastic remark that I am, or that you can condescend if you want to, but that'll just make me laugh harder, so go ahead). And for future reference, you need not keep responding, as I doubt I will keep responding to you; this is going nowhere. Happy editing.--Dmcdevit 03:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:History of science/Summary style

Dmcdevit, I would like to thank you for nominating the History of science as an FAC. It really helps to have you champion the article and take the heat, which really helps those of us who are editing it. I have taken mav's idea to heart, as has Allen3. We are starting to move out text to the main articles and we are attempting to make a Summary style History of Science. As a first approximation to mav's idea, I started with the current article, which was 59KB, about 30 [page keys] in length. Then I added an infobox as an approximation of the Framework of a Summary style article. The I started throwing out text (taking care to throw out items that I had personally contributed to, so that I would have an interest in restoring some of the text afterward) and this is what was left, about 30KB of article, including the HTML infobox.

So this gives an idea of what is available (in terms of word count) to work with in a Summary style article. Each word that we add to some section means a word gets taken out of the existing sections, to stay within a 30KB budget. It is definitely doable. But we need some consensus to help us decide what to keep in the History of science main article. Obviously, the word count in the parent or child articles doesn't count for the Summary style article. But the choice of the words is crucial. So would you mind reflecting back some of these points back to the FAC page? We need some more help selecting the Summary points and summary words. I am trying to keep in mind the ADD reader, as well.

Again, thank you for your championing of the article. Perhaps you can resubmit it later if time runs out and we are not yet completely compressed down to 30KB in time for the FAC voting this go-around. BTW, my niece and her husband live in Lafayette. She is a new professor at Cal.

  • Wow, what are the chances? I love Berkeley, the little movie theaters and ethnic restaurants! Well, let me just say, you've probably noticed that I did not contribute to the article in its development. I don't want to deceive you: I would not consider myself entirely knowledgeable in the subject, but I will try to help out in copyeditting, and that type of stuff. Also, I have a hard time imagining that any article below 50kB would (or at least should) be voted down solely due to length (check out the precedents, many long ones). PS, anyone can nominate an article (even if they're not a writer of it like me) so be sure to be bold and nominate it youself if need be.--Dmcdevit 02:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Place names

I think that place names shouldn't be disambiguated unless there are two places of the same name. This is the convention used for most of the world (but not the U.S.). Where disambiguation is needed, I've used the place, country format you suggest - for instance Touba, Côte d'Ivoire and Touba, Senegal. Warofdreams 10:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving to wiktionary

The "move to wiktionary" tag is to mark articles that are appropriate for wiktionary, but not wikipedia. You might consult Wikipedia:Things_to_be_moved_to_Wiktionary#Marking_dictionary_articles for more information. -- WormRunner | Talk 19:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I've learned my lesson :)--Dmcdevit 19:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS, I don't know what article you saw my misplaced tag on, but it is most likely a requested article at wiktionary. If you have any knowledge in the subject, please add an entry over at wiktionary.


Why did you suggest Brahmin be redirected to wictionary? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)

  • The tag has since been removed because it would have been too much of a hassle to make that into a dictionary deinition. But, the word Brahmin has been requested on wiktionary, as its definition is needed. If you are knowledgeable in the area, please contribute an entry at wiktionary. Also, if an article were to be transwikied, it would not be redirected, but kept if it is encyclopedic or deleted if it cannot become so.--Dmcdevit 23:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi Dmcdevit, Thank you for your support and kind words in my nomination. It was very gratifying and I look forward to helping out. - BanyanTree 04:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome message

Hello, Dmcdevit. I just wanted to say I miss your welcome message. ;-)

Actually, do you know if there's a good template welcome for newcomers, or a project for putting one together? Jonathunder 02:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

template notice

Reread the template notice. I removed the notice because the page is not a candidate for speedy deletion, as the template allows for.

As I noted in my earlier edit summary, it's hard to argue that a topic that an entire book has been written about is insufficiently encyclopedic to write an encyclopedia article about it. If you disagree, nominate it for VfD. -- Curps 01:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Being a dicdef stub is actually not one of the criteria for speedy deletion, in fact I believe it was explicitly voted down in the latest set of proposals to expand the criteria for speedy deletion. If it's a topic that most people would agree could never have any encyclopedic potential, then sometimes admins will bend the rules, "shoot, shovel and shut up" and nobody minds. But affluenza arguably does have not just encyclopedic but book potential (ie, a book actually exists), and the current page with "see also", "external references" and book references, categorization and stub classification, is already more than just a dicdef and is just waiting for someone to expand it. -- Curps 02:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, looking at the page history, it seems that template was created quite recently (March 25). Perhaps it shouldn't exist. I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bot_User:KevinBot -- Curps 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Move to Wikisource

It would be a fairly trivial thing to make my transwikifier move articles to Wikisource. However, I'm very burned on on transwikying stuff (I've gotten a crapload of grief and very little love over the process) so I don't want to do the actual transwikying.

If you want to do the work, and if you run Windows, I'll send you the program and instructions on how to use it if you want. Kevin Rector 04:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

You won't have to do any programming. It's a program that I wrote, you'll just have to run it. Kevin Rector 05:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
What version of Windows are you running? Kevin Rector 05:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Give me your e-mail address and I'll send you the program and instruction. Kevin Rector 05:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've gotten your e-mail and I'll be sending it out either tonight or tomorrow. It won't move to Wikisource, I'll still need to add that, but it will move to Wiktionary. Kevin Rector 05:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Black Death and Cats - particularly Black!

"Another possible theory as to how the plague spread so quickly is that by killing many of the cats (believed to be witchs' familiars) during the witch hunts caused the rodent population to rise, and with them rose the probability of infection." Taken from an anon,, later reverted by you.

I've heard this one, but don't have the materials on hand to substantiate it. Actually it was probably a social result of the ongoing waves of plague. People looked for scapegoats -- some reason why these horrible things were happening to them -- and often focused on older people who may have survived earlier rounds of the disease (and Jews, of course). The number of accusations of witchcraft increased, and measures became more draconian. These people's pets and livestock were often burned or hung along with them as "familiars." I also remember that it was about this time that the genetic mutation that results in black domestic cats emerged. The sudden appearance of these "black imps of Satan" was mentioned in a couple of sources. This led some historian(s) to speculate about a massive roundup of cats. An interesting bit of information, but perhaps not for the article. WBardwin 20:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, your phrasing here makes a lot more sense. I've done a lot of reading on the Black Death over the past months, and I have to admit I'd never heard such a claim so I was immediately skeptical. Also, (though I'm admittedly less versed in the witchhunt phenomenon) I was wondering whether the whole black cat association might not just be a modern creation, from pop culture and halloween and that kind of stuff. It struck me as odd that that was around so many centuries ago (but again, just my instinctual reation). I do happen to know, though, if memory serves, that a dog was hung during the witch trials in Salem, so anything's possible :). Thanks for your caring, and put something about it back if it strikes you as notable enough! --Dmcdevit 22:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Almost all the European black cat ideas/superstitions seem to date from this period -- associated with the plague and hence the possible mutation. The imagery seems to have stuck in modern folklore, which is where our American Halloween images come from! But these things are certainly hard to document. If I can come up with where I read it in the first place, I'll drop a line or two in the talk page -- and maybe the article. WBardwin 23:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside gross area

Hi - sorry about that. My mistake is that I didn't delete the page after I closed the VfD page. There's a reasonably clear consensus that the page doesn't belong in Wikipedia (no Keep votes, and a transwiki vote implies that it should be deleted from here) and you had already transwiki'd it, so I should have deleted it but missed that step. Thanks for catching my mistake. CDC (talk) 05:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you got me... signing up. :)

Who introduced those typoes into the Black Death page, anyway? The 13xx->18xx changes were spread all over the page, and by the end I was starting to wonder if it was deliberate. Majromax 02:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I was wondering, since I noticed them only recently. (I fixed one myself before you went through more thoroughly). If I remember correctly though the ones I saw were only in the Asia and Middle East section which are relatively new and were put in in chunks. I like to just correct and assume good faith. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, you can always contact me with any questions. If you need any ideas on how to contribute, check out the Open tasks and Wikipedia:Community Portal for starters. Happy editing.

Re: help

Wow, my first request as an administrator! It's no problem; you're certainly not the first person to do that. I'm glad to help. — Knowledge Seeker 22:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I aim to please! And you caught me at a good time, too. — Knowledge Seeker 05:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you are sneaky (and clever). I was wondering why you asked me. Good thinking! — Knowledge Seeker 05:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for all the work you are doing transwiking to wiktionary. You may want to consider redirecting some of the words since often they are just another way of describing something already in wikipedia, I've done several like drey to squirrel and dioecious species to hermaphrodite. --nixie 00:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Move to Wiktionary}}

Thanks for the note you left on my talk page. Will do. Rl 07:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bceause all of that IP's edits have merited that template... it seemed a fast way to leave him a message. I'm not planning on making a habit of it, no worries. +sj + 05:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I felt vaguely naughty editing someone's user page. WOO! I have to admit to being a bit leery about workload, but so far it seems fine. And you can always limit how many items you want to have on your "desk" at once. All the cool kids are doing it, too. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

pageturner vfd

Ah, that's true. I only noticed it was transwikied after I closed the vfd (I think - I'm tired, bad recall), and anyway, it should make little difference. ugen64 06:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CSB open tasks - query

You added Women's history as a request to open tasks. Firstly, this does not follow naming convention - the article should be History of women. Secondly, this seems like an odd topic - perhaps a more suitable title would be History of women's rights or Social history of women. This is largely due to the fact that I am not sure what other kind of history there could be other than social (which includes cultural). It is not like "History of women" will include a "military history" and "economic history" as well as social history? --Oldak Quill 09:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have renamed it in accordance with naming conventions. --Oldak Quill 17:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Could you please modify McBot to check whether there's already an article in the Wiktionary "Transwiki:" namespace and flag an error if so? It overwrote the existing Mudita as a result of Grutness repeat-tagging Mudita. Better that a human being deal with cases where transwikification has already been performed before, I would think, especially since (depending upon how the 'bot works and what it does in the case of redirects) there's a possibility that a good dictionary article on Wiktionary could be overwritten by a poor dictionary article from Wikipedia. Uncle G 13:23, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


What makes you think it's inactive? — Matt Crypto 01:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

Welcome aboard! Glad to have you with us, especially since you've already brought us so much "business". — Knowledge Seeker 08:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typo on my user page

Thank you for fixing this - I'm surpised I'd not spotted it before! Thryduulf 08:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Sometimes I can be obsessive about that sort of thing! :) --Dmcdevit 22:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. I think it's something that has been taught to often by semi-literate lecturers to half-asleep students. Codd's idea of a sublanguage is that it's a part of the RDBMS and dedicated in scope to that system, but not that it's in any way less than a language. Codd's twelve rules include on called the Comprehensive data sublanguage rule in which he specifies that a relational system must have at least one programming language, with a well-defined syntax, expressable as character strings that is fully capable of performing all operations required by a database, including user authentication, relational integrity and transaction integrity (at the time even Oracle did not yet have this--no transactions and no constraints at all except unique indexes).

I've rewritten the piece completely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Decolonization, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Tony Jin | (talk) 02:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Transwiki log

Just wanted to you to know that I made some changes over at Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log to hopefully make it easier to move the articles out of the Transwiki namespace and into the article namespace. The entries from Wikipedia are now alphabatized. You can add new entries alphabetically or alternately, after "Z" there is a place for unsorted batch additions. Good work on keeping up with it. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

A Ford or a Chevy - CHOOSE NOW!

Choose between a Ford or a Chevy, that's a great analogy. Not that there's anything wrong with Fords and Chevy's, but there are plenty of other cars out there.

The system needs to be changed. America needs instant runoff voting (or something similar). Being able to "choose" between only two candidates is a very limited form of democracy.

- Pioneer-12 16:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Transwiki Bot

Also, I just want you to know that I am still planning on giving you a new version of the bot. The new version will do the following:

  1. Check to see if the page is already in Wiktionary and if it is show you the text and prompt you to ask if you still want to Transwiki (often there is no reason to transwiki when Wiktionary already has the info).
  2. Include a simple editor which will allow you to edit the page without leaving the program (for instance if you decide to remove the "Move to Wiktionary" tag instead of transwikifying).
  3. Remove the "Move to Wiktionary" tag for you automatically.
  4. Generally operate more efficiently and nicely.
  5. Change the Wiktionary Log entries to the following format (I modified the format to make it easier to work with on that end): [[w:page name]] → [[Transwiki:page name]] ~~~~ → [[page name]]

However, I have a major paper due Friday, so don't expect it terribly soon.

Good work on the tranwikification that you've done thus far. Kevin Rector (talk) 22:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki Log Proposal

I've noticed that you've done some work on transwikification. Would you please look at my proposal at Wiktionary:Wiktionary talk:Transwiki log and weigh in. Kevin Rector (talk) 02:53, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Globus cruciger

This article should have never been deleted. I own a copy of The Dictionary of the Middle Ages which is a 13-volume, 13,000+ page encyclopedia of everything Medieval, it is a standard reference book for Medievalists. Globus cruciger maintains its own entry in that reference work. It is highly specialized, for specialists, not somthing the typical person will know much about. A wiki article could include picture(s) of both real and iconographic objects, as well as additional history, external links and references. In addition the choice to merge it with Byzantine art was poorly placed, it has allready been deleted from that article by other authors who, rightly so, say it does not belong there. I have restored it for the moment, until a proper solution can be found. It really needs its own article. What do you suggest we do about this? Stbalbach 03:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Created a new article. I dont think it's dicdef, but im not sure how that is defined, since so many wikipedia articles contain etymology.Stbalbach 05:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcoming anonymous IP addresses

Doing RC patrol, I noticed you welcomed an anonymous IP address. Next time, please use something like {{subst:anon}} since it is designed to invite the user to create an account. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, it's just at first glance, it looks almost exactly like {{subst:welcome}}. I apologize. Continue to use it if you want to. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine of Africa - African cuisine

Hi, sure that u must be doing fine. I saw ur message on talk page of African cuisine - please do the necessary changes/ I have also posted a similar request on the article's talk page, pated below:Quote** hi seeing u after a long time - I am with you, please do initiate the move , I was thinking to do that, but am not aware of all the nitty-gritty. Please do this fast, thanks.--Bhadani 06:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)Unquotebye and thanks.--Bhadani 06:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Done. --Dmcdevit 06:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I did the mostwanted-update (and I am very proud of it :D), you can find it at User:Gkhan/Mostwanted. By the way you asked what an SQL-query was, it is simply a question directed towards the Wikipedia-database (an SQL database) directly, ie not through the web-interface. If you need it again, just ask. Cheers! Gkhan 22:53, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine moves

What is the basis for these moves. Sorry only saw your proposal under British cuisine which I object to (see notes there). I actually think that British cuisine or French cuisine are what people talk about and are the most sensible names. Also you havent moved the categories or added | to the cat names, so everything is apperaring in categories under C. Please stop now and discuss this somewhere globally rather than adding single requests to each talk page so that no one takes an overall view. The adjective simply works better for pretty much everything - what are you going to do with Anglo-Indian cuisine that simply doesnt have a noun form? And many forms that are not place names also only work in this way - Vegetarian cuisine say. In cases like British cuisine the adjective is the common usage, and your suggestion to move to Cuisine of the United Kingdom is just plain wrong. Justinc 19:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

One other point specifically about cuisine (and many other areas) is that for example Polish cuisine refers to the cuisine of the Polish people, while Cuisine of Poland refers to the cuisine inside the political boundaries of Poland which is not the same thing at all. This is rather important to many people, the difference between Languages of France and French languages say. Justinc 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I replied on British cuisine. I see no reason why this should be a point of contention. And that point about Polish cuisine is why I asked first for objections. But looking at the articles, I don't see anything about Poles outide of Poland, so I don't see why it shouldn't be moved. Also I haven't checked the precedent, but Cuisine of the Polish people seems like a better name for that one then, keeping the noun first construction. --Dmcdevit 19:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I replied there, but will add some more here. Adjectives are preferable, more concise and more precise. The fact that Polish cuisine does not yet refer to Polish-American cuisine, Polish Jewish cuisine etc just reflects the current poor state of the cuisine articles, which need work. It is far more natural to put them as adjective cuisine than your increasingly contorted wordings: Cuisine of the Polish people is ridiculous, when Polish cuisine is just correct.

There will always be articles about X cuisine eg:

and calling them something along the lines of Cuisine of the Polish people would be necessary for all of them, although still as precise as Polish cuisine. Nor have you responded to the fact that you havent fixed the categories when moving things, so what you are doing decreases the usability of Wikipedia. Justinc 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, and I just replied back at British cuisine :) . But again, to reiterate, as my only concern is for irregular nationality constructions, using adjective forms for the other you mention, is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable. Those would be searchable, but nationalities are not. And it's common practice. Anyway, more on British cuisine. --Dmcdevit 00:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • lets keep it in one place then, over thereJustinc 00:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be careful

About "I like to stroke pussy cats" comments around here--it's the interweb, and the wild things are out in force. AllenGinsberg 01:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all: yes, I have been known to start conversations in the beginning, middle & end--second of all, Madame, I apologize--methought you were a dood. AllenGinsberg 05:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader has the abilities and character to be one of the great presidents. If he gets elected, he could wind up with his face on Mount Rushmore.

If he gets elected....

It's not impossible.... Nader has great respect amongst people of all political views--not just liberals, as the media would have you believe. (I know Republicans who would be happy to vote for Nader, if they thought that he could win.) The main thing that would need to happen would be for him to get into the televised debates with the Democrats and Republicans. Once he did that... then people would start to think that he could win. Once people start to think that he can win, then he CAN win. Remember, Ross Perot pulled in 19% of the vote in 92, mainly because he got into the debates. And Nader is better respected then Perot.

Have you seen this site?

- Pioneer-12 06:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki Log

The transwiki log is just that, a log, I wouldn't put too much worry into it. A resource for people who want to clean up old stuff is at Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary. That category needs a good cleaning up, you might want to put a link to it on WP:TL. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Susej

I replied on my talk page. – ABCD 01:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The two-party "system"

You have an incredibly high level of awareness for someone who is an incoming freshman. (Or for someone of any age, for that matter.) I agree that parties often cause a number of problems: for instance petty factionalism and people voting "for the party" instead of for the candidate. However, people have a natural inclination to band together with others of similar interests. Human nature, as they say. So, banning or abolishing parties would not be a feasible solution, even though it might make things better in some ways. (I don't think you were proposing to ban parties anyway -- actually, I don't think I've heard anyone seriously propose banning parties... but it is a concept that comes up from time to time.)

So, if political parties can't be realistically gotten rid of, then what options are left? To do something to make political parties work better, or to make the system work better in the context of political parties. We both seem to instinctively know that having more parties, more options is better.... yet so many people just accept the so-called "two party system" as the way it is, and view it as unchangeable. Ha! Any student of history will know that the Democrats and Republicans haven't always been on top. And the so-called "two party system" has often had more then two major parties. Some people act is if two parties is the "American way". While a pile of BS! The framers of the Constitution didn't plan it that way: they had no way of knowing that the particular method of voting they selected would ultimately degrade into a two party setup--and it was decades before a two party setup was firmly established. Even as late at the time of Lincon (1860) there were elections which had 3 or 4 "major candidates", each capable of grabbing electoral votes and substantial pieces of the popular vote. [1]

So it all comes down to, and back to, changing the voting system. (IRV now!) The voting system is the driving force which leads to the two party trap to begin with. Of course, the parties in power argue against changing it... They make up propaganda like "Oh, having more then two choices will be confusing." Really? How does anyone manage to buy a car with so many options then? How do I manage to buy breakfast cereal without becoming hopelessly confused!?

Grrr.... Heh, I guess I get pretty worked up over this, too. :-)

- Pioneer-12 10:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

William A. Patterson

Bleargh! :) · Katefan0(scribble) 18:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)