User talk:Terjen - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 25 April 2021 (→On "usually": Oh, an AL-bum!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:18, 25 April 2021 by InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) (→On "usually": Oh, an AL-bum!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Michael Metti

Response on my talk page. Kalkin 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

If you're creating stub articles, please add {{stub}} to the bottom of the article so that others can find it easier.

Chrisch 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And, while we're discussing your stub creation, thank you for getting the Telonemia stub up and running and doing the maintenance work. KP Botany 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mate (beverage)

thank you for adding some content to Mate (beverage) and, above all, thank you for referencing your material! far too much of the writing in this article is unsourced and i, for one, appreciate any addition of references to the article. -- frymaster 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

JROTC

I do not understand the edits you made on the JROTC page here . Removing the "large national" designation diminishes the reader's perception of what has become a nationwide movement against the JROTC. Also, where you changed "are against" to "criticize" is wrong, because some of the groups (such as the Project on Youth and Non-military Opportunities) exist primarily to campaign against the JROTC. Also, the removal of the words "campaign against" makes these organizations appear to be philosophical ones that don't actually do anything, and they in fact do quite a lot. I don't see any reason for these edits other than trying to understate the impact and actions of the organizations against the JROTC. If there is a good reason for these edits, that is fine, but otherwise they will stay reverted. Heavy Metal Cellist_contribs

Check the history of the JROTC entry and you will find that it was I that added references to these groups in the first place. You should see how the entry was two months ago. The referenced evidence doesn't support that these organizations "do quite a lot" about JROTC. I encourage you to dig up information that demonstrates their activities and build the case. I removed the "large national" designation as it doesn't fit all groups listed, case in point, Project YANO, who's "outreach focuses on youths in San Diego County". Terjen 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about my harsh reaction. The reason I included that statement was that I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't just local and community groups that were protesting the JROTC. I clarified the statement, making sure that readers would understand both that large, national organizations oppose the JROTC and that YANO is a small community organization. Thanks.

Heavy Metal Cellist_contribs

I put a comment on the role and purpose section about making a text move to improve flow. Without doing any actual re-wording, there are the makings of a good, well-balanced controversy section from parts of the article that already exist. Hotfeba 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with what you did on the creed thing, but do you think someone could argue that your summary of the creed is subjective and demonstrates bias in favor of JROTC? In other words someone could say that your interpretation is not what there's is, whereas simply quoting the creed in it's full text leaves it open for one to make draw their own conclusion. sf46

3RR

You just heavily violated the 3RR - a policy I know for a fact that you are very familiar with. You did a large number of revisions in the IIUS article since last night. I urge you to revert them less I am compelled to report them. Thank you.-Psychohistorian 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make a report, although I think it would be a waste of time for all involved. Your claim is completely unsubstantiated.Terjen 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Esequiel Hernandez Jr

The article Esequiel Hernandez Jr has been speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Misplaced Pages. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Merope 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Esequiel Hernandez Jr satisfies the notability criteria of being a person achieving renown or notoriety for playing a major role in a event receiving major news and media coverage. His killing was covered by major news media such as Time and the New York Times , and there was a Congressional investigation of his killing leading to the Oversight Investigation of the Death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.: A Report of Chairman Lamar Smith to the Subcommittee on Immigration & Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 150th congress. Note that gHits may underreport the number of articles on him as the name has multiple permutations.Terjen 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree...good article, too. StudyAndBeWise 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Having run across this article, I undeleted your first two versions, Terjen, for the sake of making the complete records available to all readers. It should be safe now, but let me know if it's ever nominated for deletion. —Toby Bartels (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

AAPS

When you get a chance, please take a look at my comments at Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution forks

I am sorry to say that I am not convinced that these forks were a good think, or that they were handled well. These were significant changes and I think it would have been far better to do something like filll does when he puts potentially controversial changes on his personal discussion pages, works out the kinks, and then seeks feedback from others. I am going to post essentially this message on the creation evolution controvesry talk page. StudyAndBeWise 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

US attorneys controversy

Great job on getting this to be a current event! You definately did most of the heavy lifting. Remember 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AP

Hi, You cannot attribute stories on the current events portal to AP because AP links are 1. temporary and the urls quickly change, and 2. AP is unreliable. KazakhPol 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At least one of the stories you removed was published on the website of The Guardian. That Associated Press is an unreliable source is highly POV. Terjen 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Yeah, but the NPOV wording has to stand for more than five seconds, don't you think? I think your removal of the tag I placed is premature, and should wait until there's some stability in this section when I'd be happy to remove it. (Also, my observation has been that the person who placed it is usually asked if changes are sufficient for its removal.) So I'd appreciate it if you;d self-revert your removal for now. Tvoz |talk 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible peer review for Dismissal of USA's controversy

At the instigation of User:Bdushaw I have drafted something (based on his questions) for the Misplaced Pages:Peer Review page for Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I'm interested in knowing your level of interest in participating in responding to suggestions made there, whether such a review would be worthwhile, given the changing nature of the article, and your suggestions for revisions to the request for review, which is in draft form at User:Yellowdesk/scratch4. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You do good work.

Hello Terjen, Thanks for helping with the Ron Paul 2008 Section! ITS EXCELLENT!

Anappealtoheaven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anappealtoheaven (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

RP racism quote

We already have almost the same quote a few lines up - actually looks like an excerpt from the same or a very similar quote - but the way we have it is from his own congressional website which I think is a better source than Lew Rockwell, and it is from April 2007 which makes it more timely. I'm going to see if the original congressional site quote was longer and will expand it and take yours out - no point in saying virtually the same thing twice. Tvoz |talk 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rascism - Ok I see your point

This section is so big it is hard to keep track of it from one minute to another.

I would like to see it reduced considerably and stop focusing on the comments of people other than RON PAUL.

Anappealtoheaven 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

further explanation please?

Why did you exicse the John Yoo example?

Further explanation please.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't excise the John Yoo example. I just split the paragraph and added a more precise example of what Yoo has in mind... some may say, a "nutcase" ;-) Terjen 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert on Ron Paul

hey there, you reverted a summary of his votes, taken from his page, on his voting record. Please explain exactly what is unsupported by the source, what needs expansion or improvement. It does not get much better than his own page. thanks.

23:00, June 9, 2007 Terjen (Talk | contribs) (53,349 bytes) (→Political positions - rm POV commentary not supported by source; expand; improve reference)

Skywriter 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert the summary of votes on the Ron Paul entry but expanded it with additional items from the same record. I removed your unsupported claim (also contradicted by the record) that Paul's views on social issues are consistent with the Republican Party and that he has a socially conservative voting record. Please keep further discussion on the talk page for the entry. Terjen 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Challenge

I respectfully draw your attention to my recent comments at horse slaughter, whose title change you opposed. BrainyBabe 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

CAMS smiles back at you !

Thank you for catching and correcting that vandalism at the CAMS entry. We had a logo up there, any idea how to get it back?

Also did a trackback on the IP, goes to Denver Qwest. Do you think it might be good for me to send a statement to abuse@qwest?

Thanks again! GS at CAMS ~ Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools

To get the logo back, just go to the History of the page to see the source of the original entry before it was vandalized. Unless the vandalism get to be really annoying, I recommend just checking the entry from time to time and reverting it. Kids will be kids. Terjen 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Politically incorrect

Terjen, I appreciate your help at Ron Paul, though I have not been able to follow all of the recent spate of edits. In the fracas I may have gotten your and Vidor's edits confused in parts. I'd like to recommend against calling the objectionable newsletter comments "politically incorrect", first because the wikilink was a disambiguation leading to "political correctness" (which is confusing even if fixed), and second because that does not appear a neutral description (looking at either the WP article, the source(s), or common sense). It seems that "derogatory" has stood consensus the longest, while "disparaging" and "controversial" have also been tried. If you think this is important, please respond at Talk:Ron Paul. Thanks! John J. Bulten 03:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH Alert

Fine with Frum content being moved wherever you want in the page (I find Frum repugnant, but during the GOP primary cycle, what he has to say is highly notable). I thought about putting a section break between Frum and the New Republic article, but it looked funky. I don't think they're related (I mean, I think the "disturbing" stuff Frum's talking about is the fact that Paul may be a crypto-confederate), but the article read that way. Is that what you were alerting me about?

--- tqbf 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think we should avoid making it look like Frum was commenting on the New Republic article. I don't think it is apparent from the context what "terrible answers" Frum find "disturbing". I guess it is just a fancy way of saying he disagrees with Paul and perhaps with Stewart labeling Paul the most conservative running.Terjen (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May have stomped on your edit...

I reverted your Houston Chronicle change, but didn't notice you were reorg'ing the section; since you're editing more heavily than I am, I'll let you sort it out, but sorry for scrambling the text. We can take the Chron discussion to talk if you need to (as long as you're around to talk it out, I'm not going to revert your next change; just WP:BRD).

--- tqbf 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted per your suggestion. I really don't think we should include the quote that the response was "a disservice to the young true believers supporting him". Terjen (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Took it to talk. Sorry for the confusion. WP is unusually slow today. --- tqbf 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful

Be careful what you call "editorializing" my friend. Saying "others showed him lower" is a FACT, not my opinion. Also "but" is not always a "weasel word", so perhaps you can get off your high horse for a minute. For someone demanding such careful wording, I can't see why you are fighting to give a false impression about the percentage of votes Paul got. He did not actually get 10%, so when you keep "rounding up" while talking about "weasel words", it does lead one to believe that you're not being very neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The number 9.96 is correctly rounded to 10.0 as I did, not 9.9 as you insist on. However, I will assume good faith and just assume you are mathematically challenged rather than presume you are showing your true colors when it comes to bias in editing the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 entry. Terjen (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is it required that we round off numbers? It isn't. I know full well how to round numbers, I am choosing not to round it off. How is giving a correct figure bias? Actually, rounding it up to give a false impression is showing bias my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your action rounding 9.96 to 9.9 talk for itself. Your rationale for the edit: "No rule requiring we round up to make it look like Paul got double digits." Terjen (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What you meant to say was "No Niteshift, there is no requirement to round up". The reason you are fighting so hard to round the number up is to make it look like he got double digits, isn't it? When you go to get gas, do you also ask them to round the gallons up and pay for the higher amount? You do realize that when push comes to shove, the factual number is 9.96%? That is the official result from Iowa, not the simplified number from CNN. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my reason for rounding 9.96 was solely to improve readability of the article. I would have preferred no decimals (10) as in the percentages we have in the same context, but left the number to one decimal (10.0) as a compromise. But I will keep an eye out for your edits in the future, as you seem to have an attitude incompatible with several WP policies. Terjen (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already reviewed a number of your edits. You appear to favor Paul. You also tried your nit-picking act with me before when I said Thompson "trailed" the others. I can see several WP policies that your attitude appears incompatible with as well. I'll be watching yours as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Romney thing you rv'd

I think this phrase was meant as a positive thing about the campaign; maybe you want to rephrase it? The point was he had more donors who contributed less each, which is sort of impressive. --- tqbf 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bringing in Romney in particular seemed irrelevant in that context. Whether an edit is positive or negative for the campaign is not my editing criteria. Terjen (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that it was, just thought maybe you figured I was editorializing; definitely trying not to. --- tqbf 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't even check which editor added the statement. That's not one of my editing criteria either (although I may have more confidence in some editors and be more suspicious about others). Terjen (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ron Paul

I've put back the tag. Someone else can look at it. —Random832 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

'96 election

Not disputing the edit --- totally valid --- but, have you checked out the demos on Paul's district? Winning an overwhelmingly white southern district "despite" disputed evidence of racism is hardly evidence of much. =)

--- tqbf 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is just a relevant fact. Without it we leave the reader with an open question as to whether Paul beat or lost to the attacking Morris. Besides, if what you insinuate is factual, Morris would have little reason to bring it up in the campaign. Terjen (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, people misjudge the electorate all the time. I agree with you; I'm not being particularly productive here. --- tqbf 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Winner take all

According to the wiki article on these states, they are winner take all. Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008. I think it is important to mention since Paul and other candidates, have won delegates because they've been in states that allocate based on percentage. This won't occur in these states, which have significant numbers that will only go to one candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the source I cited in the explanation for the edit, California's 173 delegates are awarded on a "Winner Take All" basis by each of the 53 congressional district: Whoever gets the most votes in a district gets three delegates. This is very different from a statewide winner-take-all system, as the delegates can be split between multiple candidates. I removed the other states we proclaimed to be winner-take-all so we can make sure it is accurate, and eventually reintroduce or correct the claim based on cited sources.Terjen (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"WASHINGTON - The winner-take-all Republican primaries in Florida on Jan. 29, and one week later in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, might seem to favor Republican contender Rudy Giuliani because so much of the battle will be fought on or near his home turf.

Winner-take-all Florida, home to many New York émigrés, is where Giuliani has campaigned almost exclusively for the past several weeks. Here is the rest: Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like Real Clear politics...... Try looking here: What does it say right after "delegates at stake: 57"? Yeah, "winner take all"! Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this list from Real Clear Politics. Every state with a W is a winner take all state. As are FL and NY found on this page: Stop being disruptive. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! That's a better source than the original one, which didn't clarify whether Florida has winner take all per congressional district or the full state, potentially misleading the reader to think it was the latter (as you seemed to believe when editing the California section). As to being disruptive, I respectfully remind you about your recent efforts to round 9.96 to 9.9 just to avoid making it look like Ron Paul got double digits! Terjen (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I used the info from the wiki article on the primary for CA. Maybe you should go tell them they are wrong. #2 If you want to explain the difference, feel free, but when the MSM is calling it WTA, then it's not something I am making up. #3 Now two wrongs make a right? You want to bring the 10% thing (which he did not get) up again to justify being disruptive now? Look, I appreciate that you are a Paul supporter and doing the best you can to make your guy look good but everything can't be worded just to spin him in a good light. 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

As to your questions: No. I do object that you label my good faith edits "disruptive". Terjen (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008

Nice work refactoring. Also, I have a personal problem with saying something just shy of 100% is 100%, but as it's the reference which made the claim, I have no ground to argue. —X S G 06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, now you know why it said "Practically all" originally instead of "more than 99%" or "100%". I am fine with the old language if you want to go back to it. Terjen (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too easy to confuse the phrase "practically all" as weasel words. Best to use the terminology directly from the reference, so 100% it is. —X S G 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

United States public debt

In what sense do you mean that there are only 116 million "American taxpayers"? Shouldn't your precise sense be described in the article? 216.165.199.50 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of American taxpayers is from the latest State of the Union address by president Bush.

Terjen, that number refers to the number of taxpayers who would have their taxes increased by Congress not renewing the federal income tax cuts, not the total number of federal income taxpayers. And, for example, many thousands of people pay federal gasoline tax, but no income tax. I'm removing this unclear reference from the article, and replacing it with total population. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Try knowing what you are talking about. Go look up libel and come back when you are educated enough to discuss the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick note regarding semi-protection

Hi. I noticed you added the semi-protected template to Talk: Ron Paul, but the page isn't semi-protected. Protection can only be applied by administrators, and the template merely informs people about the protection. If you want to request protection in the future, you can drop a note on an admin's talk page or at requests for page protection. Natalie (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the relevence

Paul is running as a Republican. The Libertarian decided if he loses as a Republican, they'd like to put him on their ticket. Paul says no. What is relevent about that? And why is a party he isn't campaigning for relevent to his campaign? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration article

I see you've taken up some further clean-up of Illegal immigration to the United States. Thanks for the help.... and keep up the good edits! Wikidemo (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection of Illegal immigration to the United States

Hi. Regarding the multiple IP addresses reportedly being used by Psychohistorian, it was my understanding that this activity has been alleged for some time on his/her user page, and without any attempt by Psychohistorian him/herself to challenge or remove the allegation on that page (if he/she in fact disagrees with it).

You might also want to check with Brimba, who (judging from this note in my own talk page) has apparently had dealings with Psychohistorian in the past and was able to identify some of the IP addresses in question as belonging to that user.

In my view (which might just be my own personal opinion), I would think that anyone with an established Misplaced Pages account ought to use that account when editing Misplaced Pages, instead of editing anonymously — especially when the edits may be contentious, and more especially when evidence (or, at least, a credible claim) has been posted linking specific IP addresses with the user in question. If (as now appears to be the case) Psychohistorian is denying being the anonymous editor using these IP addresses, I would think he/she should welcome the suggestion that the "illegal immigration" article should be semi-protected — along with any other articles that have been recently edited from the addresses in question — or perhaps even that anonymous editing of any article from these IP addresses should be blocked — in order to dispel any possible confusion. Does this make sense to you? Or are there some valid reasons (which I'm missing right now) which could make this sort of activity legitimate after all? Richwales (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda

How did I miss that? I read though it quickly looking for a discussion of "religion"... thanks for undoing my mistake. Verbal chat 06:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border

Hi, Terjen! I recognized that the editors involved agreed that the page needed to move, but did not know what to move it to. If you feel strongly, try doing a straw poll on the various available titles. When there is consensus, please re-list at the requested moves again. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar 4 u

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent article Illegal entry I give you this barnstar. Well done. mboverload @ 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a start... ;-) Thanks. Terjen (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, very interesting article! I have nominated a fact from it for the Did You Know? section of the Main Page. Accordingly I have formatted all the references using the <ref name=> parameter. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article illegal entry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WPLaw? Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why family reunification in lieu of chain migration in your edit to anchor baby?

Chain migration is more specific to the particular instance, whereas family reunification is a more general type of immigration; I think the definite and specific should be preferred over the more general and vague. I'm also a little surprised by your copying the material from the immigration section of Anchor baby over to the family reunification article; it may not be appropriate there as currently written. The legal discussion in the Anchor baby article is very specific to citizen children of non-citizen parents (with particular emphasis on illegal immigration to the US). US law concerning family reunification is actually far broader and encompasses such things as legal immigrants bringing their family over, bringing spouses over, siblings, children, etc. RayAYang (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chain migration is not more specific than immigration through family reunification, but means pretty much the same in this context. See also this dictionary definition. I am sure the material will be expanded in the family reunification entry, so I am not worried that the information copied there doesn't cover all aspects. I hope this answers your concerns - eventual further discussion would be more properly located in the Talk:Chain migration for the benefit of the other editors. Terjen (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose family reunification is a better place to talk about the law. The chain migration article appears to have a more historical, rather than legal, emphasis. I have edited the entry at family reunification -- can you take a look and tell me if you think it's sufficiently general and will stand up? RayAYang (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I added some specific content as Family reunification#Naturalization of parents as this aspect seems to be of special interest for some. Terjen (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Anchor baby

I did not add WPLaw to anchor baby. WPLaw already existed. I merely classified it and added an importance level. Afterward I thought to remove it from WPLaw, but became busy doing someting else. EECavazos (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wide Angle (TV series)

Hi there. I'm a bit new to this wiki game and realize that I should've gotten in touch before making a full-scale edit. That said, I'd like to dig in there and add back most of that information from yesterday. Much of the current info is out of date. I work for the series, and we've got lots of other information that we think would be helpful/instructive/interesting/etc. Obviously let me know if I'm going astray on that. Love to learn as I go. Thanks! Seelbach (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Immigration

Thank you for cleaning up immigration. It looks much better now - easily understood. I'm a little new to editing Misplaced Pages, so I wasn't exactly sure how to proceed. You fixed it nicely.The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration article

Please see my comment on the talk page to Illegal immigration to the United States. You seem to be revert warring with an IP editor over a change to the lead. It's not clear to me, reviewing things, exactly what the change is, which is right, and why it matters. So best to lay it out on the talk page. You may have (barely) violated WP:3RR on this so please be careful. I will not file anything, but to avoid a block you should probably indicate that you do not plan further reverts. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Terjen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Terjen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability and original research

Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Original research, and WP:SYNTH. You've now repeatedly inserted content that is not in sources cited, merely because you believe it is true, or because you think it could possibly be sourced elsewhere. For example, you've added text such as "capsaicin aerosol" — even though the source cited makes no mention of "capsaicin" or "aerosol." The text you're adding could be true, but that's quite beside the point: the point is that we follow what the reliable sources say on a particular point and we don't engage in original research here. Please knock it off. Neutrality 04:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, we can WP:RS substantiate the disputed (by you) statements that pepper spray is "a powerful chemical aerosol also used by police for crowd control" and that bear spray is "a capsaicin aerosol like the stronger pepper spray used by the police for crowd control". Neither should be controversial and is summarized from the linked Misplaced Pages entries, but WP:NOTSOURCE and all. Terjen (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

On "usually"

Have you ever stopped to ponder what even is usual, or what sets those things apart from those others, those few, those "unusual" sort? Can the abnormal be normalized? If the unexpected later become reality once, should we expect the unexpected in the future? What about twice, or thrice? I bet Socrates, Confucius and Triple H also pondered such thoughts. Or at least I would bet, in theory. Hard to find a bookie that would cover a thing like that...isn't it?

Long story short, thanks for trying. Now go on and indulge yourself, grab a glass of wine, your favourite easy chair and of course, this compact disc playing in your home stereo system. After all, music soothes even the savage beast.

Or do whatever you will, it's your weekend! But seriously, though. The Offspring were right all along, at least up until they changed, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/30/schneider.california/index.html