User talk:PeterKa

We don't allow copying from other sources, unless the contributor wrote the material that was published at the other source. Are you the original author of No Gun Ri?--Andy Schlafly 23:50, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Yes. I am. The material was on Wikipedia years ago. But the current No Gun Ri article is quite different. PeterKa 00:02, 16 December 2013 (EST)

OK, thanks for your answer.--Andy Schlafly 09:26, 16 December 2013 (EST)

It is the same story with Roman Warm Period. I wrote it a while back for Wikipedia, but later a liberal editor came along and revised the POV. PeterKa 20:33, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Nuclear option

I see that I may have disparaged your writing style. No offense was intended. You made a great improvement to an earlier version. It seems that we each have our pet peeves: you believe a definition shouldn't say what some people may think about the consequences of something; it should say what that something is. And I have a peeve about "when". Other than that, you write well. SamHB 22:40, 22 December 2013 (EST)

You rewrote it say that the nuclear option is about, "the number of votes required to pass certain resolutions." I assume this is a reference to the majority vs supermajority issue. But it seems to me it could be clearer. Also, the phrase "normal rule" implies that the nuclear option is an extraordinary rule, i.e. a recognized rule, just not commonly used. Now that that the procedure has been used in an unambiguous way, I suppose it is. But whether nuclear option was valid or not was a highly controversial issue in 2005. The presiding officer is bound by the rules of the Senate, rules that do not include the nuclear option. PeterKa 02:40, 1 January 2014 (EST)