<font color="#f90404">G</font><font color="#f9f9f9">e</font><font color"#0a0d60">o</font>. 02:59, 30 March 2007 (EDT) [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo. 03:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT) Geo. 03:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT) Geo.Talk 03:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT) I will do that sir Geo. 03:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT) Aight dawg, my bizzad.
Nice revision to the Eisenhower entry!--Aschlafly 22:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)
We don't have a "U.S. President" entry yet. Please create one! (You can do that by entering the term in the "Find" box and, when it is not found, click the link to create one.) --Aschlafly 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)
You just made a good, subtle edit with respect to "Al Qaeda" and the 9/11 attacks. Well done.--Aschlafly 01:06, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Good move of Bill Clinton to his real name.--Aschlafly 01:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- Actually, Mr. Schlafly, I think the move was done by Dpbsmith. But, Geo, your edits and template-making-skills have been more than helpful. --<<-David R->> 21:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- I am pretty sure I moved it. Geo. 23:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Tremendous edits! Very well done.--Aschlafly 21:28, 5 March 2007 (EST)
Welcome to the SYSOP group! Please help block vandals when we reopen registration.--Aschlafly 12:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Thank you. Will I go to hell for braking them? Sane
Geo, Thanks for Blocking user "Gimp". I happened across his edits of "Christian God" and undid them. Vandalism like this needs to be blocked. --HSDad 01:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Einstein and rollback
A word- on most Wikiprojects the use of the admin roll back toll can be considered rude when not dealing directly with vandalism or disruption. JoshuaZ 16:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Try clicking on the link you gave me, it redirects to a page called "404.shtml". --Hojimachong 00:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I see that you mentioned you were going to unblock Oedipus Rex. I don't know what he posted but certainly his user id. is suspect, and the person who blocked rarely blocks anyone. Are you sure you were able to review deleted pages that might not show up any longer on "Revised Changes"? I'd recommend being cautious about unblocking someone blocked for obscenity.--Aschlafly 00:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Click on the page where you would normally block the user, there should be a link there to an "unblock" form. Click on that and fill it out. JoshuaZ 00:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Is your unblocking of Koronus temporary or permanent? He vandalized many pages a week ago, including the placement of an obscene image on my User Page. MountainDew 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Never mind, I see what you've done. Cool. MountainDew 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)
If an editor's behavior is so bad that you don't want them to edit ever again, there's no need to do something like a year block, just do an indefinite block. Meanwhile, on most Wikis I'm a member of, deliberately temporary blocks for first offenders are generally much shorter, ranging from about 8 hours to 1 week depending on the project and severity of the offense. JoshuaZ 01:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I'd say an infinite ban after parole is broken. I'm for being lenient and giving second chances, but we'll need to have a lot of people watching for vandals. My hope is that most people will just forget if they aren't serious about helping. I think if we do institute a parole policy there should be some way to mark people on parole so that if they commit a violation (say, something they write needs rollback) the sysop doing this can see and ban them. --John 23:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)
One of my students misused the account. It won't happen again. Please see my discussion page. --WOVcenter 01:06, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Template for AFD
Do we have a template to stick on top of articles that are under AFD? Thanks. Tmtoulouse 14:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- The article is Quote mining see my AFD AFD Quote mining. Good luck with this project, enjoyed working with most of you. Tmtoulouse 21:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Change to ACLU
Hey Geo, A while ago you suggested that I write to you with my proposed addition to the ACLU article, about what good the ACLU has done. Sorry it's taken so long, but it's included below
The ACLU & the Fight Against Racism (make this a section heading, please?)
Along with the NAACP, led at the time by Thursgood Marshall, the ACLU briefed and argued many influential Supreme Court opinions that led to the eradication of legal segregation. They have continued to defend racial equality since. Even recently, the ACLU fought to overturn prohibitions against renting buildings to immigrants
Additionally, you really need to edit out the language indicating that the author of the Dover case, Judge Jones, relied on a court opinion that was reversed (the Cobb case). First, I'm a Georgian so I know firsthand about the case. The appeal was actually dropped, leaving the pro-evolution lower court holding intact.
Second, I'm a law student, so I know that "vacated and remanded" means "come back with more info, we can't decide this," while "reversed" means "Lower Court, you were wrong." Equating the two sends the message that the higher court indicated that the lower court's pro-evolution Cobb opinion was wrongly decided; despite your personal feelings, no high court has said so, and the case was dropped.
--AmesG 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for adding the Racism section!!
- On the "vacate" thing, two points.
- First of all, note that the appeal was dropped, discontinuing appellate review. I cited to it above, you can see the website for yourself. So that renders moot the distinction between "reverse" and "vacate."
- Second, the difference between is plain from any Black's Law Dictionary. Vacate & Remand means to nullify the judgment pending renewed appellate review, and this action, importantly, passes no judgment "on the merits" of the lower court's opinion. Reversal explicitly passes judgment on the merits. The line in the ACLU article as it stands suggests that the higher court reviewed the lower court's opinion "on the merits" and disagreed, which it did not. It simply barred enforcement of the judgment until the appeal was completed, based on an incomplete list of trial docs.
- The "on the merits" distinction is critical. While you can no longer enforce a judgment that's been vacated, that does not necessarily imply that the lower court opinion is no longer good law. Depending on the procedural posture, it may still be good law. Check the case, and you'll see that the higher court intended it to still be good law.
- Oh, and aside from that, I think the unbiased nature of the article remains highly in doubt. First off, there is no "gay agenda" anymore than there is a "black agenda" or a "female agenda" - none of those groups are unified political entities, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. I think "agenda" should be stricken from the topic heading, to avoid sounding too pejorative.--AmesG 01:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Kitzmiller Discussion wrong
(I'm adding this here as it was mentioned I should over in the ACLU/talk page.) The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html Lawrah 08:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Adding a link to the opinion, which does disprove the part of the ACLU article that I've consistently told you is wrong, does not excuse the continued presence of false and misleading statements in the body of the article. I still recommend you strike the statements, or modify them. I'll help you draft them if you want.--AmesG 00:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)