User talk:Ajdz

Speedy Delete

In the case of articles like Mike Panetta, instead of listing them on WP:AFD, you can mark them for speedy deletion. If it meets the speedy deletion criteria, use the appropriate tag and it will be deleted without the need to go through deletion review. -- JLaTondre 04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. --Ajdz 15:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A supporter of overlinking

Welcome! When you are removing overlinking, you should leave dates (such as 10 August, January 12, 1423, or 12 June 545) linked, as it allows the "Date format" preference for registered users to work. Thanks, and happy editing! --AySz88 ^-^ 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the dates notable. It sounds like a bug (if it's so important, come up with another way to convert without overlinking) - but I don't see why having different forms of dates is any worse than having English/American spelling variations, as long as usage is consistent within an article. --Ajdz 19:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're arguing to the wrong person. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). You're not really required to link dates, although it is a courtesy to do so, but please don't remove them. --AySz88 ^-^ 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, don't get so worried. --Ajdz 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a great example of what is wrong with Wikipedia

Correcting grammar is one thing, editing the meaning of my contribution I do not like. As to my misrepresenting the facts, please what does the following mean, and how is it different from the edit?

What critics say on his record: Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."[1] He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution.[2] Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.[3]

Stance towards Presidential powers according to critics: However, Bush's recent actions make it clear that he interprets the coordinate construction approach extremely aggressively. In his view, and the view of his Administration, that doctrine gives him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, based on his own interpretations of the Constitution -- even where that violates long-established laws and treaties, counters recent legislation that he has himself signed, ........[4] “I have carefully read the writings, the speeches and the decisions of Samuel Alito in [the area of executive power], and they all point in one direction: a very troubling pattern of great deference to executive authority,” Chemerinsky said in his testimony.[5] Alito apparently believes that a president may decide by executive fiat what law is or is not constitutional, and whether he is bound by the rule of law. Alito's willingness to elevate the president to an exalted status above the law is truly frightening to hear from a Supreme Court nominee. This view harkens back to the divine right of kings (the king is accountable to no one but God), which was forever rejected by our American Revolution. Alito is clearly signaling that if he serves on the Supreme Court, he will serve as a rubber stamp for the exercise of unchecked executive power.[6] Whatever else Alito may or may not have made clear about his views on such issues as abortion, federalism and religious freedom, he has certainly made clear that he has no interest in restraining the acts of this commander in chief.[7]

Does this say that the Bush administration might claim to be above the law. national and international?-- Nomen Nescio 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes are irrelevant for the statement that you have such an attachment to. Your claim is to describe the Bush administration's position, but you ignore the words of the Bush administration IN YOUR OWN SOURCES. --Ajdz 08:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I am not allowed to mention the view critics have. They believe he will support the Bush administration in its interpretation of the Unitary Executive, which is thought to be that as Commander-in-Chief the President can not be restrained by law, national or international. Maybe we can meet halfway, mention the official position Bush takes.--

Nomen Nescio 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To adopt the view of the critics violates Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view (NPOV). --Ajdz 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Dutch person, what is your obsession with Alito? I am wondering if this is caused by a misunderstanding of American law which separates the Constitution from Congressional statutes. --Ajdz 08:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect! Discussion of criticism is allowed, as long as it is identified as such, this is in accordance with WP:NPOV.--

Nomen Nescio 08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only you were doing that. --Ajdz 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to my being Dutch, there are numerous reasons for me as individual, and Dutch citizen, to be interested in US politics. If you are interested I am more than willing to explain.--

Nomen Nescio 08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I asked, although not the interest in politics as much as the obsession with such small issues. --Ajdz 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are no small issues.

Second, if the assertion is correct, this most certainly is not a small issue. I'll explain.

The US through history has intervened worldwide in local politics. Some of it good, some of it bad. Among the bad examples we can think of the role the U.S. administration or U.S. subjects have played in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, aid to Operation Condor through the School of the Americas.[8] In addition, we can look at current affairs such as the memos refuting the Geneva Convention and justifying torture,[9][10][11][12] the use of unlawful combatant status. This shows there is a destructive side to US policies.
These actions could be seen as war crimes.[13][14][15][16][17] However, in stead of ensuring the world is a better place, the Bush administration is supporting war criminals by frustrating the International Criminal Court and by suggesting the Geneva Conventions are quaint. In effect, the US is mounting an attack on the rule of law.
Furthermore, we have seen that these foreign policies have counterpruductive effect, as can be seen in the rise of Osama Bin Laden, and most recently Hamas.
This brings us to the Unitary Executive theory. If the opponents of Alito are correct in their interpretation of what the theory holds, this means all the above can be done without legal repercussions. This is a frightning idea to me, because already people are being kidnapped around the world and denied due legal proces. How do I know, this administration will not kidnap me, or invade my country? It would all be warranted and legal under the advanced theory (correction: possible interpretation as seen by critics).-- Nomen Nescio 12:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, address the arguments instead of deleting this post. Clearly, your POV is more important than engaging debate. Furthermore, deleting entries to other articles mentioning these points, seems petty as long as you are unwilling to comment on the issues raised above. One can only conclude you back away from this for lack of argument.-- Nomen Nescio 07:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I would like to ask you to discuss the matter in stead of editing out the disputed comments. As long as you are unwilling to debate I take your action to be not in good faith.--

Nomen Nescio 07:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments speak for themselves. Please get over your fanatical attachment to POV text. --Ajdz 07:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you still are not discussing but bullying me into accepting your POV.-- Nomen Nescio 07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you have the POV of a peanut as long as you get over your fanatical attachment to bad text. --Ajdz 07:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing contents is not correcting grammar!-- Nomen Nescio 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting grammar necessarily requires changing of contents. But beyond that, the problem is your fanatical attachment to bad/POV text, as mentioned above, repeatedly. You do not own wikipedia. --Ajdz 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to address the arguments I have provided, we can discuss and try and find compromise.-- Nomen Nescio 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant irrelevant rants aren't worth "addressing." I don't care what you think of President Bush or how afraid you are that American death squads are going to swoop into your house and haul you away to Gitmo. Just don't pretend that you own wikipedia. --Ajdz 08:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You clearly are not interested in resolving the dispute. Since you are not engeaging in debate it would be civil to no longer edit the articles in question.-- Nomen Nescio 08:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you take that time to reflect on your non-ownership of wikipedia. --Ajdz 08:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, just like you might be reading resolving disputes.--

Nomen Nescio 08:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you owns Wikipedia. And as far as I know, neither of you has access to more or less of the facts than the other. Both of you have a responsibility to work through those facts.

Ajdz, Nescio has raised a couple of points, and he seems to have found some critics who support them. We don't need to automatically accept what they say, but we shouldn't just dismiss them either, simply because they have a POV. We all have a POV on most things, the challenge for us all is to find a NPOV that we can all live with.

I'm not an expert on Alito or Unitary Excutive theory, but I think I'm able to judge competing claims on their merits. Would either of you mind if I asked each of you a few questions? Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have, for the most part, been VERY small. That leaves no reason to respond in detail to giant rants, as above, especially when the comments I do make are reverted and ignored without comment. --Ajdz 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations do not help. I welcome the offer by Ben Aveling, hope you can try and explain why you edited out a sourced comment. You clearly disagree with the reference, could you at least tell us why you object to inserting views critics have of Alito and the Unitary Executive theory? --

Nomen Nescio 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, just for the moment, I think it would help if you let me ask the questions. I'll pretty much alternate between you, so you'll each get a say and a chance to respond.

Ajdz, Do you mind if I ask a few short questions? I promise not to ask anything to which I expect a long answer. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your silence as a no. If you decide to change your mind, just leave a note on my talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This little one's not worth the effort. --Ajdz 04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC streets

An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Cantwell edits

The section is about her senate term. This was a major vote and she voted against the Democratic Senate leadership and sided with Bill Frist on probably the most important judicial vote of her entire life.

I met the Senator last week and have met her several times since I am a political activist in the Washington State Democratic party. I cut her a campaign check that I now regret. --8bitJake 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph did not convey that message. I don't have a problem with it being there, mostly that you restored a less-clear version instead of improving it. --Ajdz 06:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Cantwell

I thought that as someone who has recently edited Maria Cantwell, you might wish to comment on an issue I've raised on the article's talk page. Brendan 00:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ajdz 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webb

told ya he was a candidate! take care now, --StevenL 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he was not a candidate at that time and theoretical candidates (there remain many, many more) should not be included. --Ajdz 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning now, previously it was rather unclear --StevenL 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Regarding your comment

I apologize if you think that I was overreacting with my reversion, but there was good reason for what I did and what I said. As for your edit being marked as minor, I believe that it wasn't. Minor edits are making something a wikilink, changing the spelling of something or formatting something, not adding or removing content (many of your changes in that edit would be considered minor, except the part I took exception to).

And for the record, I don't think that I "angrily reverted it." This was something that had been removed in the past, there was no explanation as to why it was removed, and it was marked as a minor edit. I reverted that change with a note about marking edits as minor, and I'm sorry if it looked like I was being harsh (would an angry revert have a "please" in it?).

The reason why that statement was in the article is because a previously similar statement was replaced with Coleman simply calling himself "pro-life." While I'm not going to get into the argument over whether or not "pro-life" is an NPOV label, I - and others - believe that it should be clarified for people reading the article that might not be savvy to that euphemism or aren't from the United States. Coleman makes no exceptions in his opposition to abortion, that's a relevant fact, and should be clarified in the article. I would strongly encourage you to re-write it if you think that it is poorly worded, but unilaterally taking that out is removing useful information from the article.

Again, I apologize if you felt I was harsh; I'm just a little zealous sometimes about making this a quality article. -- MicahMN | μ 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I do think the statement still looks redundant (which is the only reason I removed it in the first place), mostly because it remains vague, but I don't know enough about Coleman's positions to rewrite it. For example, does he oppose abortion to save the life of the mother? A source might be useful here. In fact, if sourced, your statement would work quite well: "Coleman makes no exceptions in his opposition to abortion"

If I had been following this article when you were having deletion problems before, I probably would have agreed with you. --Ajdz 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman Photos

The photos you asserted were "out of place" seems strange to me. This is an article about Norm Coleman. These photos are photos in the public domain of Norm Coleman 1). Speaking at Hofstra Univ 2). Hanging an anti-war flag in protest of the Vietnam war 3). Campaigning for Student Senate President. It doesn't get more "in place." This is a depiction of his political history and ideologies plus shows how active he has been in politics since a young age. 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronRoe (talk • contribs)

I removed the two of the three that were in sections about much later parts of his life. (I have also replied to the discussion on the talk page) --Ajdz 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Race Article

Just seeking your input on the Mike Ferguson bit. When we talk about a 'controversial contraceptive' are we talking about RU-486? This is another one of those examples where we get into Hill-Speak. The left calls it a contraceptive pill while the right calls it an abortion pill. In order to neutralize the piece, would it be better to just call it RU-486 with a link to the article on the pill? I am not sure if that one issue is going to be that important in the race, but I think we should try and make it acceptable to all. If RU-486 is not the 'contraceptive' in question, then forget everything I just said.Montco 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the details because the source in his own article is an anti-Mike Ferguson blog. The last time I checked it looked like he might possibly oppose or be less than supportive of the morning after pill (which I believe is different than RU-486, but raising exactly the issue that you described). I've just been trying to prevent significant overgeneralization and wouldn't be surprised if someone who knows more about that specific race would say it isn't even worth including here. Does that help? --Ajdz 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what then?

If only sourced news ISN'T passable by you, what CAN we agree on to deal with the nacional influences that will affect these races? Not all Federal politics is exactly broken into their alloted districts... 68.39.174.238 08:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the appropriateness of speculation in United States House elections, 2006, which has been discussed on the article's talk page. The section you seem to be referring to has been debated for the last month and removed for multiple reasons. Please compare this article to United States Senate elections, 2006 and United States gubernatorial elections, 2006. --Ajdz 16:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on relevant talk page. Also, the "debate" seems to be you, I, and one other person (Not counting the accedintal reversion because someone else thought it was vandalism). 68.39.174.238 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is there a commented out sentence here?

In regards *, that sentence was not supported by any citation, and it was particularly provocative and implausible. It's not removed so that if a reliable source verifying the information can be found, it can be put back in, while in the meantime that condition is brought to editor's attention. Kevin Baas^talk 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like something that should be removed entirely, but maybe it is helping editors in their work. --Ajdz 02:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Petro would dispute the "he is the front-runner" claim (although he probably is). Depending on the poll, the Republican primary is pretty close. It's silly for Wiki to include highly dynamic info such as who is the "front-runner". Since Wiki is based on volunteers, it does not have a reliable method to maintain accuracy for descriptions of political races. Newspapers discuss current events. If Wikipedia is truly an "encylopedia", it should focus on the know-able and focus on history. Recent history may be okay, e.g. Katrina. However, political races involve people's opinions, rather than event descriptions. Wikipedia, if it wants to be a tax-deductible 'free encyclopedia', should consider avoiding topics where Wiki itself can become a tool to shape opinions in political races. Is Wiki a newspaper and its articles just Op-Ed candidate endorsements or is Wiki an 'encyclopedia'? (Are some Wikipedians really just acting like their own 527 political interest group, with Wiki articles as their free method to distribute their campaign message? It can appear this way.)

Mr Strickland would also dispute the "he is the front-runner" claim (and local Ohio blogs would likely agree). Come November, the not-a-Republican vote -- which is currently polling to Strickland -- could easily go instead to Libertarian Mr Peirce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.48.2 (talk • contribs)

Hi

I think this is the first time we've crossed paths on Wikipedia. Based on your comments on the Coleman talk page, it's a pleasure running into a level headed person for a change on one of the articles on a member of Congress. If you're interested, could you please help me out and take a look at this edit I'm having a hard time keeping the trivial material out the article given the 3RR. Best regards, 172 | Talk 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much that is trivial in those articles that it makes me wonder if it's worth it. I'll try to follow the debate though. --Ajdz 05:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Constitution Society

Here is a link to what I believe was my source for the list of speakers. Bob Barr is on there somewhere. [18]. I clarified the relationship between the speakers and the org. in the ACS entry. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Jessesamuel

Hello

The film, like many small indepdent projects, is not heard of as yet. But I can tell you it is being made professionally and if you need proof of my involvment or proof of its existence as not just some silly like POS film then I'll give you proof. I can foward you dozens of production emails. Ryan Moore 08:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedict Huang

Greetings Mr Ronald Moore. For your information, I have given evidence that I think that this is a pure hoax. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Plagiarism - Coleman

Query this and tell that needs " ". AaronRoe 07:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied on the Coleman page, leaving out the quotes plagiarizes the news story in the results. --Ajdz 07:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with...

An interesting read. For the most part, I wholly agree what you're getting at. michael ^talk 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidate

I thought you'd like to know that List of United States federal legislation has been nominated to be a Featured List. It needs 4 votes by October 2 2006.

As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation.

Thank you!

—Markles 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]