User talk:U193581/Archive 4

Archived talk

Talk previous to 21 July 2005 is archieved at the links below.
Talk to 8 Dec 2004 9 Dec 04 - 26 Feb 05 27 Feb 05 - 17 Apr 05 18 April 05 - 21 Jul 05 19 April 05 - 20 Dec 05

archived talk4

Edwin

It is true that a group of supporters contineued the the reform party in Minnesota But that group is the Minnesota Reform Party. I was actually thinking of writting a litte blurb about them but their webpage seems have been dorminate since 02. They would belong a different page their own. The RP of Minnesota would be seperate from this group. The RP of Minn is the the same party as the IP of Mn. Here is an anlogoy. Malcom X was born Malcom Little, so by your logic we should have two articles on the same person because he had two different names.

You have yet to provided a reason why the RP of MN should have it own page. All the info on it is already covered on the IP unilateral decisions are you not also doing that ?

off topic but, I am curious since you are a DFLer, would you support the party dropping the Farmer-Labor part of their name and just be the Mn Democratic Party?Smith03 15:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to your last question on your talk page. I am formulating a thoughtful response to the rest. EdwinHJ |^Talk 21:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. It not an issue that gets kick around too much. I just like to get peoples opinions on it especially people who ID themselves as Democrats or DFL.Smith03 15:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) for the record I would like to see them drop it but it probably won't happen anytime soon

You may want to weigh in on this

I personally think that there is no good reason to delete this, but rather to re-write in a NPOV manner. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands MicahMN | Talk 23:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party

That's alright. Careful wording is a very difficult thing to get people to agree upon, so I'm glad you concur :). Slac speak up! 23:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran-stub

Hi Edwin - just thought you'd like to know that no-one objected to the idea of {{Lutheran-stub}}, so I've just added it to the list of stub templates. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Council of Churches

Looking back at the history I noticed you tried to impose NPOV. user:Guy Montag insists on putting in POV on this, I will be lookirg at it, could you also keep an eye on it. Paul foord 02:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Edwin, thanks for your kind words, and vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August ☎ 17:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings

Hail, fellow "genetic Lutheran"! Congratulations for your work on the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" article. Are you a member of it? I am; I've served on the Grand Canyon Synod Council among other institutions. —Vespristiano 00:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:MAC logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, commons:Image:MAC logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Service System does issue cards

Hello:

I'm reverting your edit because SSS does issue cards. See [1]. It sounds like you're not an American resident or you never registered with the SSS. Nearly all American males are required to register under federal law.

Although the card is technically called a "registration acknowledgement card," it serves as a de facto identification document because if we really had a national identity card, then conscription could be done by simply entering queries against a main national identification database instead of maintaining a separate database just for conscription.

I am a US resident and I have yet to meet a single man who carries a SSS registration card in their wallet. the card that the SSS sends is simply confirmation of registration, not an identification document. EdwinHJ | Talk 01:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Coolcaesar 01:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Directness

Frankly my wikistress is so high I thought, and do think, relaying my concerns to someone you would listen to rather than (potentially) get drwan into an edit war or drawn out debate (I have a tendaency towards diatribe). Some wikipedians (this is not an allegation) think that they are never capable of loosing control (going wikibonkers per se), I know better about myself, and I choose a third party through no fault of yours, but from fear of mine. Cheers. -JCarriker 01:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

New User Category

I have created a couple of new user categories modeled after UK Wikipedians. One of them is for our generation, born in the 1980s or 1990s. Please consider listing yourself under Category:Millennial Wikipedians Thanks. -JCarriker 18:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Totally Obvious

I suggest you stop your smear campaign to delete the Totally Obvious article, or else... {{El Maestro}}

renaming Elizabeth II

Why have you proposed the renaming of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom yet again? This has been debated to death, the last vote only finished 9 days ago!!! Please stop revisiting an issue that is closed. I am deleting the vote. It is a farce to keep having to revote on the thing. The last time 92% voted to keep the page where it is. Fear'''ÉIREANN[\^(caint) 17:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Obnoxious

How exactly is it obnoxious to use the signature Man of Ireland in Irish? If you have a problem with a user using the Irish language, that is simply a reflection of your own rascism and bigotry. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here. Frankly, I find it pleasant to see a splash of green and orange to offset the usual array of white, blue, and gray. Regarding the Elizabeth II issue, the only reason Jtdirl is acting like this is because he saw it before I, John Kenney, Astrotrain, or any number of others did. The issue has been debated to death and is closed barring political revolution in Britain or elsewhere. She's not Queen of the Commonwealth Realms; there's no such animal. Please let it be. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(comment directly below was placed by Edwin above the paragraph above, but I moved it, or else it would seem that Mackensen was endorsing what I say below. It would be wrong to create that impression.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

I'm sorry if you (FearEireann) thought I had a problem with your slogan or you personally. I guess I find your signature to be unconventional and it seems to draw a lot of attention. But I should not fault you for that. I'm also sorry if I was a little harsh, this is a topic that is really important to me and I guess I was frustrated that I didn't play a bigger role when the move was suggested before. On a different note, I want you to know that I love everything about the Irish, their music, their culture, food, music, dance and language (and Guinness!).EdwinHJ | Talk 23:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand your concerns about the issue of QEII. Personally I have no problem with creating a disambigulation page and a series of articles on HM's role in her various realms. I don't think however that dropping the of the UK bit of the current name is the best way to go. After all James I was King of England, Scotland, Ireland and theoretically of France, Mary II queen of those realms. Victoria was Queen of the UK, Queen in Canada, Empress of India, etc. It could become a tangled web of pages with an undefined monarchs provoking edit wars. We need to find another way that keeps the sequence but covers the complexity. :-) FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 23:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)