User talk:Geo.plrd

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

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)

Okay. Sane

Mexico

Try clicking on the link you gave me, it redirects to a page called "404.shtml". --Hojimachong 00:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Geo

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)

Unblocking

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)

Block times

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)

Sorry

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.[1]

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)

Mainpage, "Articles to be improved"

Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via Articles to be improved? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... --Sid 3050 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked

A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) , also known as the Intelligent design case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching Intelligent Design to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."

In his opinion, Judge John E. Jones III noted the case Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact." Jones came to this same conclusion himself, relying on the Establishment test, the Lemon test, and applying the reasonable student standard that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case itself. The Judge uses this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites Selman and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the Selman holding.

Judge John E. Jones has been accused of copying heavily from the ALCU's briefs by the Discovery Institute, an institution that filed amicus curiae briefs in the case. The allegation is a partial truth.The judge also ordered costs for the plaintiff, in accord with civil procedure protocol, totalling over $2 million.

References

---

I've come to these conclusions based on close reading of the case. I deleted the line about preventing appeal - it's not in the opinion - and I removed the line about Selman being vacated, since it seems to me unnecessary since it's only one of a few cites. Note that none of this is opinion. It's all fact. For example, if you doubt my change to the wording of the Discovery Institute's "90% plagiarized" comment, I suggest you read the whole opinion.

If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to discuss it with me over e-mail (ames@nyu.edu) or on this page, or on my page. I'd rather you edit this as you see fit than toss it all out :-) !--AmesG 00:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

So...?--AmesG 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Request

I'm having image upload troubles; If it's not a hassle, could you please upload the image here and let me know where you put it? I want to use it in the welcome template. Thanks! --Hojimachong^talk 01:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Fire in the Reichstag

This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But as the statement as it is now is simplistic can can better be removed. --Order 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

Enjoy

Enjoy yourself here since everybody on Wikipedia knows you are a vain useless non contributor. Zaheerabbas 01:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)