User talk:Gloriamarie

Welcome!

Hello, Gloriamarie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The Ungovernable Force 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi Gloria,

I'm Christiane

I've just read (scuse my English I am Francophone) an article about Flylady.

I think that you wrote it, is it true?

Because I would like to contribute with an article about Marla in french. Wikipedia of course.

But for now I just plan to be inspired by your's is it possible?

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely Yours,

Christiane (Myrtilles in the French Wikipedia) 19:49

Hello Christiane! I wrote a part of the FlyLady article, but I didn't write the whole thing. I have been planning to add some things to it, so maybe I'll take that opportunity now. I think it's perfectly OK to just translate Wikipedia articles from one language to another, without having to start from scratch. Good luck, and by the way, I think your English is very good :) -Gloriamarie 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Projet:Traduction is the place where you can request translation of English Wikipedia articles to French. See fr:Projet:Traduction/*/Lang/en. utcursch | talk 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

walther

You may want to have a look in on Talk:Walther P22 again. Griot has canvassed only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article, so I am alerting those who were not yet contacted. There has been discussion on WP:ANI about the outcome of the previous polls. Your continued involvement in the discussion(s) would be welcomed. ··coel acan 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It was interesting catching up on the debate. --Gloriamarie 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Sarah Winthrop; Frances Fitzgerald (Irish politician); Social safety net; South Central Illinois; Ryan Fitzgerald; Derk Cheetwood; Federico Lopez; Leblon; Charles S. Deneen; Robert Fitzgerald; York Community High School; Farah Fath; Kim Johnston Ulrich; Ashley Benson; Arpoador; Bay of Pigs; Jack Guzman; Priyanka Gandhi; List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton

Cleanup: Communications in Puerto Rico; Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport; Deer Path Middle School
Merge: Grammatical mood; College Republican National Committee; Gross income
Add Sources: List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States; Ginger Lynn; Barry Fitzgerald
Wikify: Anil Kumble; Firewall (networking); Flying Squad
Expand: Zinedine Zidane; James Kerwin; Dave Fitzgerald

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for your recent contributions on some articles I have worked on. You may notice on the associated talk page of the article Reed Slatkin, and some other related articles I have compiled some reputable secondary sourced citations that I have not yet added but which could and will all be used to expand the article. Smee 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Salvatore Gencarelli

Hey there,

Thanks for the comment on the Genovese crime family user talk page. I noticed that your user page says you have a bazillion interests but knowing such a person as Sal Gencarelli is quite unusual for those without a keen keen interest in the mob. I'm intrigued! Personal friends? Alexbonaro 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Thanks Alexbonaro 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be most excellent of you! Anything is great but information specifically on his position in the family and who he associated with mainly would be most interesting. Thank you very much Gloriamarie. :) Alexbonaro 04:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My email is brooklyn_mafia@hotmail.com, and I would be happy to talk on there. Thank you Gloriamarie. Alexbonaro 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Please explain why you chose to remove the Sean Hannity section altogher. I think this was a defining moment in the debate and I would like to form a compromise on the text.

Could you please make an edit of what I have started and contribute what you perceive to be appropriate text?

Anappealtoheaven 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss it on the talk page, but people keep adding entirely unverifiable sources. A blog that links to an article to Texas (which does not even mention Ron Paul) is a joke of a source. This rumor has been discussed for days on the talk page, and no one has been able to come up with a decent source. A quote from Jimmy Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Rm999

However, personal biographies are held to a different standard than regular articles. Negative information is treated in a different way. In this case, the refutation of an allegation of negative information-- very negative information if it is true-- should be given special consideration. You have not had it on the talk page for days, because I have been watching the article every day and I just noticed it before going to bed Friday night. On Saturday, when I saw that you had removed the information entirely, citing the source, I wrote on the talk page and tried to look on ProQuest. Since you just added that yesterday (or during the night EDT Saturday morning), and it is 6:08 EDT right now, the information could not have been up for "days." Put a citation tag and give it a few days to see if a good citation can be found.--Gloriamarie 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the talk page, I am fine with someone adding it back with the citation tag. I would just prefer it if someone can find the source ASAP. Rm999

I'll do that, and I'll work on finding the source. I'd like to get to the bottom of it as well.--Gloriamarie 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the tag

Yes, my edit with "unscientific" made it more neutral, but unfortunately I can't count how many times I and others had to re-add that wording, as recently as last night, so - as the person who added the tag - I would have preferred that it remain until it was apparent that the wording was likely to last more than a few hours. Tvoz |talk 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same person taking it out or many people?--Gloriamarie 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I haven't checked who has been taking it out, but I know that "unscientific" is in for a while, then it's out, and there has been little stability regarding this. I'm not referring to your changing the 2nd one to "similar" - that was a good edit - but other edits of the debate sections and the Pres campaign in general have been misleading and incorrect. A very similar issue has come uphere - there are people editing many articles in which Ron Paul is discussed with POV, non-neutral wording. We just have more of it - although I see that you are trying to bring neutrality to the piece. So am I. Tvoz |talk 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can watch who is taking it out and ban them? I think it's OK the way it is now.--Gloriamarie 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal. I'll watch to see if there's any pattern of removal which would justify a block, or if it's random helpful editors. In any case, I didn't re-add the tag, just wanted you to know what I thought about this. I'm more than willing to wait and see. Tvoz |talk 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good.--Gloriamarie 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Since you have an article with more info - probably a section on family (his, I mean) would work to include what we have plus any added material about his wife, parents, if available - like other candidates have - the wife and kids stuff doesn';t belong in medical career, obviously. Tvoz |talk 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.. I'm going through adding information in order as it appears in the article, but I'll do that when I'm done.--Gloriamarie 17:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds goodTvoz |talk 17:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful that it not sound a little like a puff piece - do they not have any critical commentary? Tvoz |talk 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look. I'm not done yet. :)--Gloriamarie 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha... that's why I said it here not there! Tvoz |talk 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again - I fixed several ref tags that weren't right - not sure what happened there. You know how to use "ref name"? Tvoz |talk 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I guess I was working too fast! I'll pay more attention.--Gloriamarie 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, no - sorry if that sounded critical - I was just going to tell you what refname is if you didn't know - no problem, you;re in the middle! I'm not looking over your shoulder (just feels that way, huh?) - I just was curious to see what you came up with about his family and the tag had munged it. Tvoz |talk 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look up more things on his family, but there's surprisingly little other than about his wife. There is some info on various Myspaces of his kids and grandkids (apparently he has another great-grandchild on the way) but those aren't really great sources, so I don't think I have much to add on that front for now. I found some info on one daughter who is a doctor, but it would be odd to only have information on one child so I won't add any of that. Should the family part be at the end or the beginning?--Gloriamarie 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - I think it could be in either beginngin or end - I've seen it handled both ways. I'll take a look. I answered your Edwards question on his talk page, by the way, in a way-too-long comment... and I was really not directing anything negative in it at you - it's my take in general about these political candidate's articles, many of which I edit and watch. Tvoz |talk 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Turnham Page

I tried to clean up the Joe Turnham page by adding more news sources and a headshot. When you have a moment please look and see if you're satisifed that this page passes the notability test.

List of songs whose title includes personal names AFD

Just saw your comment here. Obviously I agree with you! I don't understand what their problem is - I never edited this list before, but have referred to it, and came upon the deletion nom so I've jumped into the fray. I really don't get it. Seems to me another example of the people around here who can't really contribute, so spend their time crapping on other people's contribution. Really gets me mad. Tvoz |talk 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usually I am a bit of a deletionist when it comes to every Joe Six-pack who wants to have a Wikipedia article, but for things like that, it seems clear that it has a purpose... and I find it very interesting.---Gloriamarie 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lots of articles can't be justified, and I occasionally support deletes, but this kind of list is under attack in various forms, and I think it is not justified. I hate to see this end up gone - there's no good reason for it. We're not a paper encyclopedia and this is a good list. I hope other people notice this and speak up. Tvoz |talk 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost finale (with spoiler)

In a good way absolutely. I thought it was a brilliant switch, and the show was poignant, well-acted on several people's part, very well-written - to me, it redeemed what was a disappointing first half of season, and last year was spotty, someimtes weak,. Last half of this season had some memorable shows - a few were excellent - but the finale and its change are genius, if they can really carry it off and not have this one show as a taste of what could have been. I really loved it. Sorry you had it spoiled - my policy is to never read anything if I'm anticipating a movie or tv ep - even pictures give things away. The finale opening credits did too - but I didn't care much because I had long ago guessed that Walt or Michael would show up - I expected that to be handled very differently though. My best example of a movie being spoiled for me - like totally destroyed - was about Sixth Sense. But since I don't know if you've seen it (you should!) - I won't post it here now. I could have killed someone. Tvoz |talk 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliani

Great work on Rudy Giuliani! Dogru144 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informatist

Great work on the Infomatist page. What name do you play the game under?

Hi. Thanks! I don't actually play the game, but I have a friend who does and I figured I'd write the article. :) Once I found out more about it, I really wanted to start playing it, though, I'll have to soon.---Gloriamarie 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Hello. Yes, I added the POV-section tag to the Ron Paul article. I'm a complete novice at using the tag, but I believe it links directly to the appropriate section - Controversial Racial Remarks - of the Talk page (it does for me). My proposal is to remove the section completely and make note of the controversy in the footnotes. If needed, I can draft text for possible use in a footnote. Best regards. Jogurney 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliani Revert

Thanks for cleaning up the aftermath of my revert. I originally meant to do it myself but spent so much time figuring out how to revert in the first place (easy actually, but it took me a few false starts to find that out....) I couldn't get to it. Also very much appreciate your work on the article in general.Veritas23 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding userpage boxes

I have a dumb question regarding userpage boxes. I clicked on your userpage after seeing your edits on the Ron Paul article. I'm new, so I have a quick question. Where did you find all those boxes such as "This user eats sushi" to put on your userpage? I copied a couple, but I want to find more. Thanks and keep up the good work on the Ron Paul article. I've been following it for awhile now --CommonSense101 06:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Ron Paul

Good job on adding all the hyperlinks.--Gloriamarie 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--JayJasper 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Header on Ron Paul article

Hey Gloria,

Yeah, I added the sub-header and then header to the section because that is what it is primarily composed of. A response by Ron Paul and surrogates to the remarks. I think someone would be hard pressed to honestly say that the section is about the remarks (it doesn't contain the remarks, describe the remarks or remark on the remarks). The section is at least 90% response to the mysterious remarks or possibly more. It is a undue weight mess that takes up too much of the article and serves no real purpose. It is neither informative, well written or particularly interesting. I would like to keep the header (or something similar) until the keepers of the article decide to change it. I would try and change it myself but feel that trying to condense it into 5 or 6 sentences would be a monumental effort (considering the history of the section and related editors). I hope I explained myself well enough and if the header gets removed (without a good reason) I am adding a npov tag. That is not a threat in any way. Just telling you how I would proceed. Turtlescrubber 21:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informatist

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Informatist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Marasmusine 12:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights

Gloriamarie, good question. The article on Gay rights was renamed LGBT social movements in 2006. See extensive discussion at Talk:LGBT_social_movements/Archive_1#Propose_rename. It looks like someone is essentially recreating the same article at LGBT rights in the United States. If you examine the words "gay rights" you are not including Transgender people (gay). Plus there's the contingent of people who consider "rights" to be loaded language. The words "social movements" seem to me to describe various points of view on the subject. In politician articles, it's better to use neutral language... example: there's a reason we call it "Abortion" section versus a "Right to life" section. Peace, MPS 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax

Gloriamarie, I noticed you support Ron Paul so I thought I would offer this article Honk if you oppose a Fairer Tax that argues how the FairTax plan is least destructive of the goals of Austrian economics and libertarian ideals. Some reading that is not covered that well in the Wikipedia article. The libertarian party is somewhat split on the issue with the common problem of incrementalism. Morphh ^(talk) 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

I'd personally like to wait a bit longer. There are a few edit conflicts still simmering, and I think there is some cleanup work that has yet to be done, like organizing content into more logical paragraphs and trimming the longer sections. Still, you can go ahead with it if you want. Some GA input could put some of those rogue editors in their place.--Daveswagon 23:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mugabe

It is good to see you answering the fact templates and helping verify the article. The work continues, but it is all becoming quite interesting. Good stuff :) SGGH ^speak! 00:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV at Barack Obama FAR

[[1]] seems to say that there is concensus (even on Rezko) someone may conclude. This is not the case. I am writing to you because you are a recent talk contributor. There is a debate on ig the article should remain a Featured Article or if it no longer qualifies (if edit warring stops then it may qualify, being a FA or not doesn't say Obama is good or bad). Feddhicks 19:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not getting involved

I don't find political candidacies all that interesting, first of all, and I am worried some things about me might cause conflict, especially on pages for right wing candidates. Atropos 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of negative material from Rudy Giuliani article

In the thread at Talk:Rudy Giuliani#Proposal to make the Controversies Section its own page, you were one of those who commented in opposition to the suggestion. By my count (including opinions later expressed elsewhere), this wholesale deletion of information from the main article is supported by three editors and opposed by six.

Nevertheless, the three keep trying to implement their proposed deletion. You can read a lengthy discussion at Talk:Rudy Giuliani#NPOV tag. I've reverted the deletion three times already today, as well as spending a lot of time trying to explain to them why their approach contravenes Wikipedia guidelines, but the edit war continues. I'm calling the situation to the attention of the other editors who chimed in earlier, in the hope that the matter can be resolved on the Rudy Giuliani page without resort to dispute resolution. Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane t c 05:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware that there is distinctly partisan activity going on, on the Controversies of Rudy Giuliani page. Keep an eye on it. Regards, Dogru144 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Hi there! It's actually incredibly easy to move article pages to a different name. There's a tab between "history" and "watch" that says "move." I would recommend, though, that you attempt a quick discussion on those pages before you initiate the move, just to give people an opportunity to give their opinion. If there's no objection, give it about a week then move them. In the meantime, feel free to look over the policy on naming conventions: WP:Name. I'm not particularly familiar with it myself. Good luck! --Midnightdreary 13:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your input

Could you please weigh in on this: Talk:Ron Paul#Summarize mainlinks?--Daveswagon 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I have also sourced my additions; many times you have removed text supported by those citations. The thing that upsets me most is that you refuse to allow anyone to say Paul is against gay marriage when he has said federal officials imposing a new definition of marriage to be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty" and "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." Your edits are profoundly hostile to WP:COI and Wikipedians understandably fear having supporters of political candidates whitewash and guard their articles. ←Ben^B4 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has not said that he is "against gay marriage" and in fact when asked about it has said something to the tune of "anyone can have any relationship with someone else and call it what they want." You can certainly say he's against gay marriage if that is actually the case and reliable sources say so, as is the case with John Edwards and many other candidates. Most people (and especially Republicans) are against gay marriage, so if I was trying to get Ron Paul elected by my edits, I would actually want you to include that tidbit! I don't care whether it's included as long as it's sourced, and the one source you've given has the above quotes, but those are regarding federal and "activist judge" intervention and Paul has said that he believes states should have the right to choose. He voted against the FMA, which you forget to mention in your edits. That would have banned gay marriage at a federal level. I don't know whether he is personally against gay marriage, but he has voted for it to be decided by the people on a state level. That can be proven. Your assertion cannot. It is original research for an editor to decide that he is against gay marriage when he hasn't said so and neither has a reliable source. Find a reliable source that says it and you can include it. If he's as against it as you say, it shouldn't be that hard to find one good source.--Gloriamarie 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think being against gay adoption implies his position on gay marriage? ←Ben^B4 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the source that says he is against gay adoption, or whether one time he voted against a bill which included an amendment (not included in the final bill, so not central to it) that prohibited federal funding for adoptions by unrelated people. He votes against most federal funding for anything.--Gloriamarie 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment had nothing to do with funding, it was simply a single-issue prohibition. He apparently takes his faith more seriously than his strange-bedfellow libertarianism. ←Ben^B4 09:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the citation for the assertion that it had nothing to do with funding? What is the name of the bill? If he takes his faith more seriously than libertarianism, wouldn't he have voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment?--Gloriamarie 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current version of article lead-in

No, I don't support that sentence. Not notable enough for the lead-in.--Daveswagon 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter remarks

I have started to summarize and condense the newsletter remarks section on the Ron Paul talk page. Would you mind weighing in with your thoughts. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 15:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For your outstanding work expanding the article on Skip Prosser in the wake of his sudden passing, I hereby present you with this barnstar. --B 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter article controversy

The source supposedly exonerating Paul uses the words "smear" and "derogatory comments" -- if you want to claim it wasn't controversial in the face of terms such as those you will need a source saying so. The extent to which your edits appear to be biased in support of Paul is very disturbing and irritating to me. If you can't keep your professed support of Paul from interfering with your editing then you shouldn't be editing his article at all. ←Ben^B4 05:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits speak for themselves. They are neutral. Your edits, your edit descriptions, and behavior on talk pages also speak for themselves. You can say "derogatory comments" then, but it has not been called a "controversy" by a mainstream source so to do so is original research. This is a minor point anyway.--Gloriamarie 16:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happier with "Newsletter article smear" as is supported by the source cited? I doubt it. The use of the word "controversy" is pervasive on Wikipedia for things like this. ←Ben^B4 19:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "Alleged newsletter remarks on race" is not sufficient, but that is a minor point and I don't care about it as much as you seem to. I do not like someone saying that I have no business editing a certain article just because I give my opinions about it on the talk page, when I have written a majority of the article in question, and when I was a contributor to the original insertion of the section in dispute and reverted it untold times when it was blanked by anonymous users. My edits are neutral and yours have not been for the most part. That is what is important. I don't appreciate it. I'd rather spend my time contributing to Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 20:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's legislation

I want to try to talk to you about in hopes that we will not have to resort to mediation. Why do you think it is permissible to include what Paul says about himself without including the legislation that contradicts those statements? How is that not a violation of WP:NPOV? ←Ben^B4 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it in Political positions of Ron Paul in the section on abortion. However, the section in the main article is supposed to be a summary, but your version has an inordinate focus on abortion, mentioning it in four separate places and in at least two full paragraphs while other positions get only a few words or no mention at all; at least two other editors have agreed with me on this on the talk page since yesterday. To say that it conflicts is original research without a source and to include two pieces of legislation in full detail while ignoring other important information is not only not NPOV but causes undue weight and the section to be unbalanced. That's pretty clear to those who have responded on the talk page. Why are you concerned about one subject being NPOV and not all the others? Why the focus on abortion at the expense of everything else? From the responses on the talk page, you are the only one so far who sees your version as NPOV. --Gloriamarie 06:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the statements suggesting he is a social libertarian and wants abortion relegated to the states. You yourself have included statements to that effect. The fact remains that he has introduced federal legislation that would make abortion murder, allow states to outlaw sex acts and same-sex marriage, display the ten commandments and nativity scenes. The focus is not specifically on abortion (but if it were, like I say, what other issue has resulted in more domestic bombings?) but the legislation which conflicts with his statements. We have had an article on the We the People Act since January 2006, and it concerns a lot more than abortion. ←Ben^B4 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not in including those acts; it's focusing so much on them in what is supposed to be a summary article. Saying that he believes in states' rights or that he does not believe in allowing federal judges to overrule states' decision-making is much more informative. To argue your point a bit, both of the legislative acts in question do not go against what he has said about abortion; they would simply take away the Supreme Court and federal courts' ability to overrule states' decisions on abortion, because he thinks states should be allowed to decide either way. States would not be required to outlaw abortion, and it would be as before Roe vs. Wade, where some states outlawed it and some did not. He doesn't believe in the federal governmment interfering, which includes the Supreme Court. The Constitution also allows Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court if they deem it fit. So, I'm not sure what your point is. The end result of the bills = states deciding, which is what Ron Paul has said he's for. I don't see how that goes against his stated position at all. The Sanctity of Life Act would have no effect other than states being able to write their own laws on abortion. You can read it for yourself and see that the entire thing except for the first sentence deals with limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.--Gloriamarie 09:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sanctity of Life Act would do a lot more than move jurisdiction around, it would make murderers out of thousands of doctors and their patients. If you are not opposed to including the acts, how would you summarize them? ←Ben^B4 09:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what the bill says, it would seem to allow states to decide whether abortion was murder; the bill does not say that it would automatically make all abortion murder. I think it's overkill to have both pieces of legislation because they are similar. A summary would be something along the lines of "Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005, which would take jurisdiction on abortion away from the United States Supreme Court." That basically is repeating what's already said about Roe vs. Wade, though, so I don't think it's necessary. Why do you think abortion should make up such a large part of the Political positions section? --Gloriamarie 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know we disagree about its importance, but Paul has made abortion a major part of his campaign, and I think it deserves a paragraph. I don't think the bills are alike, the SLA deals only with abortion but the WTPA covers much more. You removed sources saying that defining life as beginning at conception in law would make abortion murder. ←Ben^B4 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think he has made abortion a "major part of his campaign," other than an appearance at one event. One paragraph is quite different from 2.5+ or 3 paragraphs as you previously had it, but I think enough is said about it as it is. What more can you possibly say other than he is an "unshakeable foe" and he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade? You'll have to discuss it on the article's talk page; I'm not the owner of the article or anything.--Gloriamarie 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul..

Do you have a source of him saying that he wants to increase legal immigration? He is the only candidate with the exception of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter to address the number of immigrants in his platform:

"But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods."

Jeremy221 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source would be needed to say he wants to decrease legal immigration if that is said or if it it is said that he wants to increase it. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but he has said many times he wants the current illegal immigrants to get in line just like everyone else does. I think he is more for more equality of all immigrants rather than increasing or decreasing. I think what he's saying is that if 60 million new immigrants are allowed in, they would be allowed to speed up past others who have been waiting for years (I assume this is in reference to Mexican immigrants) rather than waiting as applicants from other countries do, because it's just inconceivable that so many could be allowed in legally without speeding up their applications in some way and not fully processing them as they currently do. According to the article Immigration to the United States, 1,000,000 legal immigrants come in per year. Increasing that number by 60 times would obviously cause havoc in many ways, first of all by increasing the bureaucracy needed to approve all those immigrants and handle the paperwork in any sort of timely manner, secondly by increasing the amount of immigration so dramatically, and thirdly by pushing even further back those immigrants who may have already been waiting patiently for years. It would be more accurate from the above statement to say that he does not want to increase the number of legal immigrants by 60 times the current rate, not that he doesn't want to increase legal immigration at all.--Gloriamarie 09:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more on Paul

OK, I haven't read back through what's been going on, so I didn't know I was stepping into something that had been discussed at such length - I'll try to catch up on that, but I don't think I'll change my opinion about this needing to be in the lede. It's too big an issue - I have read many comments all over the place from people considering supporting Paul for his anti-war stance and struggling with his abortion position. It's not at all a minor thing to a large part of the electorate, and de-emphasizing it here is not a good idea - it may be seen as POV editing, which I recall this article had its share of a few months back. I haven't been watching it closely lately, so I don't know how it's been now. Tvoz |talk 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV thing is still there, but mostly on the part of one editor. Many editors have been driven away by his consistent behavior. It is difficult to reach any sort of compromise on even the smallest phrase, it seems, without days of discussion and what seem like hundreds of comments saying the same thing over and over. It's very frustrating. I don't consider this POV editing due to the background of the dispute, but it's good to have fresh eyes coming to the article anyway. The thing about the position is that it's best understood when discussed fully, which it is now under the Political Positions section. It's not as easy as saying he's "pro-life" when for some reason he gets a 65% rating from NARAL and most "pro-life" politicians get a rating closer to 0%. It's best to explain it. That's my position, anyway.--Gloriamarie 02:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether he has voted in a way that NARAL views as being pro-choice, his position and his self-description and all evidence is that he is pro-life. Gloriamarie, you're counting angels on the head of a pin - this is so clear. I see no harm in keeping "pro-life" in the lede - he'll likely win over as many votes as he'll lose, and in any case that's not what I'm concerned about here, and I hope you're not either. (Which editor?) Tvoz |talk 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm concerned about; mainly I do not want the issue to devolve into going around and around with one editor adding something, then another, then another and then having a whole paragraph on abortion in the lead. You're convincing me, though, and I think it's fine to have it in the lead. (The editor's name starts with B and ends with 4.)--Gloriamarie 03:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know my persuasive powers are intact. Tvoz |talk 03:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gloria! I am so thankful there are level heads such as yours keeping the RP article intact. I apologize that my combining the abortion sections of the talk page may have confused; I will respond to the combined section shortly. I felt the need to horn in (and "be bold") because it seems that the POV tag might otherwise stay up indefinitely. I intend to finish my comments on the article soon and then make them as I propose if there is no substantial timely response. I guess my concern is to demonstrate to anyB4ody that the POV concerns have been addressed in relation to the points raised. My goal is to see the POV dropped asap, does that sound like a reasonable approach? And do you have any special insight on which remaining POV issues are the most volatile? Thanks! Would of course also appreciate your experienced insight as to my first article. :D John J. Bulten 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back. Could you do me the kindest favor and dialogue with Photouploaded on what would be acceptable coverage of Paul's pro-life positions? Seems he did not like the idea of editorial FN from lead, so he tried four FNs from lead instead, and I tried it as zero FNs from lead and restoring the editorial FN to the positions section. I think though that if you and Photo can reach consensus it will be much more stable. Thanks! John J. Bulten 15:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you for at least the partial revert of Turtlescrubber's deletion of the end of the positions section. I replaced the other portion and then realized that I was in violation of the WP:3RR policy, which forbids more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, so I reverted myself back. However, it turns out that you are in violation of the policy because your four edits [2][3][4][5] all undo at least part of someone else's edits, within the last 24 hours. However, since nobody has told you about the WP:3RR policy yet, you can't be blocked for it. If I had let my edit stand without reverting myself, I could have been blocked, typically for 24 hours. ←Ben^B4 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The first and the last edit you pointed out, I believe, would not apply because I was not undoing anything but just improving them. The last edit, I took nothing out, but reordered the sentence so it made grammatical sense. Anyway, I'll keep that in mind.--Gloriamarie 07:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire

I was scrolling through the history of the Rudy Guiliani article to see when something else was added, but noticed that you removed the KBE after his name and left a comment that non-British citizens can not be referred to as KBE or Sir.[6] That is only partly correct. For recipients that are not British the "knighting" is only honorary, so they may not be referred to as Sir or Dame, but there is no prohibition in them using the post-nominal abbreviation.[7] Not that I'm going to add it back or anything as Guiliani doesn't use the abbreviation after his name (except on trips to the UK), so there isn't a reason to use it in his Wikipedia article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out-- I guess I got too overzealous in removing the title from both his article and Billy Graham because the KBE looked pretty silly :) --Gloriamarie 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Public domain policy

Hello. Please see Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Use as little non-free content as possible. --Tom (talk - email) 02:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tame

thanks for tidying up the article. The new organisation was a good idea, and made sense. Ohconfucius 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Comment on Ron Paul

I felt I was commenting on a discussion on the apparent internet prominence of a candidate with little other media support. The point I was making was that controvesy generated by the appearance of ads for his campaign on notorious neo-nazi hate sites would cause an increase in internet traffic around his name thus explaining the amount of web traffic. My desire to add to the discussion has obviously rattled a number of feathers therefore I will desist in future. --Gramscis cousin 08:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't want to ruffle any feathers either, but I just didn't see how that theory contributed to moving the discussion forward. He's certainly not a neo-Nazi, and he actually did get quite a bit of media support after he raised more than almost any other Republican candidate last quarter. He's been all over my TV the last week. Barack Obama's support does not come from being endorsed by Fidel Castro, for instance.--Gloriamarie 09:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Crew page under threat of deletion

I would like your reaction to the controversy surrounding the biographical article on Dr. Rudolph Crew. Do you think that the article is POV? or worthy of speedy deletion? An editor tagged the biography article on Crew, an education chancellor under NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, the longest tenure chancellor of education (NYC) in recent memory prior to Joe Klein, for speedy deletion. It seems that it got tagged, simply because it had comments that were embarassing to Giuliani devotees.

Crew gets 209,000 hits in a yahoo search. Given that Crew has indeed been quite notable, e.g. getting interview by high profile media, such as PBS, I consider the moves by the editors to be highly partisan /POV. Dogru144 04:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Additions

Susan Strickler

Strickler is an American television and theatre director; Nominated for three Daytime Emmys (1992, 1993, 2005) and won once in 1992; Nominated for two Directors Guild of America Awards and won once in 1993; Directed Guiding Light, One Life To Live, and Another World; She is close friends with Gary O. Bennett, Linda and David Laundra. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

John Fisher

Fisher is an American television producer; Nominated for three Daytime Emmys and won once for Outstanding Drama Series (2005-2007); Served as a producer on Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, Politically Incorrect, and The Original Max Talking Headroom Show.

Deborah Blackwell

Blackwell is an American television network executive who was responsible for the rise of soap opera centric cable network, SOAPnet. Under Blackwell, as general manager, the channel grew in distribution to more than 67 million homes and secured rights from NBC and CBS -- in addition to sib ABC -- to run same-day daytime soap episodes. The channel also acquired off-net primetime skeins such as "One Tree Hill" and "The OC" (and before that, "Melrose Place," "Beverly Hills 90210" and "Dallas"); SoapNet also extended its stable of original programming -- including its first-ever scripted entry, a spinoff of "General Hospital," and reality entry "The Fashionista Diaries." Blackwell left SOAPnet in October of 2007.

Linda Gase

Linda Gase is an American television writer who has worked on Standoff (co-Executive Producer), Crossing Jordan (co-executive producer), Wild Card, The District (executive story editor; co-producer), Live Through This (executive story editor), ER (Story editor).

2 IMDB Links

Morgan Gendel

Morgan Gendel is an American TV writer & producer 1996 Writers Guild of America nominee; 1996 Primetime Emmy nominee for Outstanding Drama Series; writer on 1-800-Missing, Spider-Man, Nash Bridges, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine; executive producer of The Dresden Files.

John Leekley

John Leekley American writer & producer on Wolf Lake, Miami Vice, Spawn

Jeffrey Stepakoff

Jeffrey Stepakoff is a Jewish American writer for Beauty And The Beast, Major Dad, Simon & Simon, Hyperion Bay, The Wonder Years, Dawson's Creek. He developed and wrote Disney’s Tarzan and Brother Bear. His 2007 book, Billion-Dollar Kiss: The Kiss That Saved Dawson's Creek and Other Adventures in TV Writing, was critically-acclaimed.

Thania St. John

Thania St. John is an American writer and producer on Life Goes On, Buffy the Vampire Slayer,Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, 21 Jump Street, Eureka, Huff, Wild Card, Veritas: The Quest, VR.5, and Roswell.

Writers/Producers

Deborah Joy Levine (American writer and producer on Any Day Now, Dawson's Creek, Early Edition, Class Actions, The Division, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Beautiful People, Courthouse, Strong Medicine) [14]
Randall Caldwell [15]
Anna Fricke: American TV writer and producer on Dawson's Creek, Everwood, Men In Trees, The Trap, Touching Evil [16]
David Cherrill (ex-Head Writer of Search For Tomorrow)
Jean Arley: American TV producer of Where The Heart Is & One Life To Live [17]; [18]
Betty Rothenberg: American TV director of Y&R from 1984-2002. Nominated for 17 Daytime Emmys and won 7 times. Winner of a DGA Award. [19]; [20]
Maxine Levinson (American TV producer & TV executive) (ex EP of OLTL, ex-VP of ABC Daytime) [21], [22], [23]
Dave vonKleist More than 21,000 hits on Yahoo
David Hiltbrand [24]
Burton Armus (Emmy nominated writer-NYPD Blue) [25]
David Schulner: American TV writer/producer on Desperate Housewives, Miss Match, Tell Me You Love Me, Everwood, The Oaks, Once And Again, What About Brian,MDs

Laura Maria Censabella is an American playwright and screenwriter. She has been awarded three grants from the New York Foundation for the Arts: two in playwriting for Abandoned in Queens and Three Italian Women, and The Geri Ashur Award in Screenwriting for her original screenplay Truly Mary.

Her short play Posing was nominated for a Pushcart Prize, and The Actual Footage won the Tennessee Chapbook Prize for Drama. Both plays are published in Poems & Plays. She has written the short film adaptation Physics for HBO's Women: Breaking the Rules series, and she has won two Daytime Emmy Awards for her work on ATWT.

Censabella's half-hour independent film Last Call (directed by Robert Bailey) has been an official selection in festivals throughout the world, including the Avignon Film Festival, the Other Venice Film Festival, the Hermosa Shorts Film Festival, the Sedona International Film Festival, Anthology Film Archives, and the Breckenridge Film Festival where it won the Best Short Drama award.

Censabella's teaching experience includes the New School for Drama, the Actors Studio Drama School (where she developed the playwriting program with Romulus Linney), Columbia University's School of the Arts, Columbia College's Undergraduate Writing Program, City University's MFA Writing Program, The Sewanee Writers' Conference, and Summer Literary Seminars. She is a member of the Dramatists Guild and the Writers Guild of America, East, and graduated from Yale University. External Links: MTSU; IMDB-LMC

Censabella Censabella Category:American television writers Category:Women television writers Category:Soap opera writers Category:Television writers

Christian Hawkey is an American author of The Book of Funnels (Winner of the 2006 Kate Tufts Discovery Award), the chapbook HourHour. In 2006 he was given a Creative Capital Innovative Literature Award, and he has also received awards from the Poetry Fund and the Academy of American Poets. He teaches at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, NY, and his work has recently been translated into German, Slovene, French, and Portuguese.
Reed Steiner [26]
Shelly Moore is an American screenwriter. Positions Held: GH ( 1996- 2002)
Frederick Rappaport
Joe Ann Fogle [27]
Lewis Arlt: American screenwriter [28] [29] [30]
James Fryman
Script Coordinator
Anthony J. Hilder: American documentary producer & conspiracy theorist. Very notable: Yahoo Search On Hilder
Stephen Schenkel is an American TV producer. Positions Held: All My Children's Executive Producer (March 1986-January 1989). Awards & Nominations: Nominated for several Daytime Emmys. [31]
David Assael
Anne McGrail [32]
Michael Switzer: Prolific TV director [33]
Nicholas Sgarro
Kristina Lear: American actress, writer & director. [34]

Nina Tassler

Tassler is an American television executive, a graduate of Boston University-bachelor of fine arts in theater), and holds the position of President, CBS Entertainment since September 2004. Her boss is Nancy Tellem, President, CBS Paramount Network Television Entertainment Group. Tassler oversees CBS' prime time, late night and daytime programming, as well as program development for all genres.

Other Positions

Executive Vice President, Drama Series Development, CBS Entertainment (July 2003 -September 2004)
Senior Vice President, Drama Development, CBS Entertainment (1998- July 2003)
Vice President, Drama, CBS Productions (August 1997 - 1998)
Vice President, Drama Development, Warner Bros. Television (199? - 1997)
Director, Movies and Mini-Series, Lorimar/Warner Bros. Television (1990- ?)
External Links: Boston U: Tassler & Promo Magazine

Live Through This

Live Through This was a shortlived MTV series.

Executive producers: Michael Yudin, Bernard Lechowick, Paul Palmer, Robin Spry
Producer: Stewart Harding
Line producer: Michael Siry
Director: John L'Ecuyer
Writers: Karen Krenis, Brian Strause, George Huang, Bernard Lechowick
Cast: Jane McGregor, Jessica Welch, Sarah Manninen, Tom Lock, Matthew Carey, Bruce Dinsmore, David Nerman, Jennifer Dale, Ron Lea

Undue deletion of Controversies of Rudy Giuliani article

Greetings, I recall by the history of various Rudy-related articles, that you were a party to some debates. I thought that you would be interested in thwarting the WP:POV deletion (via an WP:Articles for deletion nomination of the RG Controversies article. Hope you can get a moment to pipe in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani Dogru144 03:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul 1996 campaign controversy

Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. John J. Bulten 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Attacks Decency

Thought that you'd find this new article interesting <Fox Attacks: Decency> and the associated press release. [35] Dogru144 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

You've been a tireless custodian of the DePaul University article. Thank you, from one Wikipedian to another. Shawn (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Giuliani Partners connection with Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani

Hi. One editor has opted to delete this from the Giuliani Partners article, saying that it belongs in the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 article. (Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed flee when the U.S. FBI was pursuing her.) Another editor has blanked the article from the campaign article, on the grounds that it belongs in the Giuliani Partners article.

I hope that you can weigh in. Dogru144 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Teacher Tax Cut Act

An editor has nominated Teacher Tax Cut Act, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacher Tax Cut Act and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

us department of education

Thanks for contributing the "establishment" section. It was the closest thing to what I was looking for, an idea how the US managed education compared to other countries, and how it managed education before creation of ED. 199.184.238.224 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Souter

Nice job on the improvements to this article. I stumbled upon it and it's a much better read then I last remember it. :) Wizardman 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Requested

I plan to delete the "Name Change" section of the "Steve Fossett" talk page, as it is not relevant to improving the article. As that section contains a comment from you, I would like to know if you have any objection to such deletion. If so, please post your objection in that section of the article's talk page. I will presume silence as consent. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Thomas

Thanks for the work. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. There's a cite error in the article for an abc news citation; I think you added those. Please fix that; I don't know how to work that stuff, which is why I just list the whole cite every time, heh. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was put in by an IP address in this error, but I fixed it with no problem. Thanks for letting me know. I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page not to do that sort of stuff again.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehnquist

Whoa! Thanks for the work, but please give page numbers for all your citations. For example, page 509 for this: "While Rehnquist was often a lone dissenter in cases early on, his views would later often become the majority view of the Court." Please fix what you've added. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do that in the future (although it's not required in citations, it is helpful I'm sure), although Rehnquist's bio is only on one page in that book so it's easy to find that information.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for work on the Nixon article

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		message Jojhutton (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just need a clarification

I am just wondering what the reasoning is for this edit [[36]]. Although I don't see problem right now, I was just wondering what the problem was with the way it was written and formatted before. Anyway, I'm suer there is a reason. Go ahead and leave your response here, since I am currently watching your page. Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar by the way :) My reasoning for that is that those two paragraphs are general summary paragraphs about things that happened in both his first and second terms in office, so they didn't really belong under the First Term section. I figured that if we add a sentence or two about Vietnam, China and Watergate, we have some good summary paragraphs of his entire presidency. It's ok to move them back if you disagree, I just thought it didn't make sense to talk about second-term goings-on under the First Term section.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats cool, I'm not disagreeing, I was just wondering. That makes sense. I didn't look it over too carefully, but where did you move the paragraphs? Did you create a new section? Finally, is there anything else that needs work before its nominated for GA again?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them just up to the top section, "Presidency," which was already there but just had a picture of him receiving the oath of office on the family Bible. I don't think there are any huge issues with the article as it is, so we could see what the reviewer suggests and implement those when suggested. Was there a previous GA review? --Gloriamarie (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]