User talk:Skyler1534

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Good evening. I have been following your discussion of the Job Training Partnership Act on VfD with some interest. Thank you for taking the initiative to clean up the article. I would only ask one thing. When you have the article cleaned up, do not "remove this from VfD". Please allow the discussion to run its 5 day course. This will ensure that the discussion is properly archived. (Okay, it won't really ensure it, but it'll increase the odds a bit.) Welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami 22:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 I'm so Jealous

2 Economics; FTA.

3 Peer review

4 Case citation formats

5 Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project

6 Great Job!

7 SCOTUS Case Article Improvement Project

8 Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases

9 Straton Oakmont Inc., etc.

10 Request for admin status

11 Thanks, Patrick, for feedback!

12 Oyez,! Oyez,! Oyez!

18 Thanks for your efforts on Atheism

19 Advocate

20 adminship

21 Abington School District v. Schempp

22 Some stuff

23 RFA candidate

24 Article Licensing

25 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause

26 Call for AMA election

27 Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting

28 COORDINATOR'S OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

29 Logs of first AMA Membership meeting

30 OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

31 OFFICIAL AMA THIRD MEETING NOTICE

32 AMA Meeting Proposal

33 Supreme court question

I'm so Jealous

I've done a fair bit on Jealous Guy. It is not perfect - It's rushed, overly sentemental, due to a rushed ending, and needs some tidying up. We're sorting it. I know yer not a Lennon fan (sort it Pat) so do us a favour and try to view it in the eyes of someone who isn't blind and ignorant (i kid, i kid). If i get a positive response from you, I'll remove that little stub thing. I think it should porobably come of the delete page then. If i get a negative responce, I'll delete the stub thing anyway and pretend it was someone else (Tee hee hee, the perfect crime). Just remember, what may seem dull and irrelavent to you may, to another, be a metaphorical cascade of knowlege, interest and literary gold. Cheers Bud. --Crestville 23:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Economics; FTA.

I should probably explain. My comment on Vfd was meant as a sarcastic jab at the content of the article, where it seemed to be implying, ludicrously, that economists are motivated by personal greed. This of course, as you recognise, is laughable. Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear.

Excellent work so far on the Free Trade Agreement article. Congratulations. I think the agreement has already passed the senate, so we'd better work quick in order to get it listed on Current Events (although I don't have any idea how to do that. . .) Thanks very much for chipping in and I'm sure we'll find other things to also collaborate on in future. Lacrimosus 08:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peer review

I have posted a respose to your request for peer review of Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 on the article's talk page. I hope it helps. Isomorphic 05:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Case citation formats

The case reporter doesn't get underlined—only the case name is either italicized or underlined. Thanks! Postdlf 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project

Hi, I moved Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project to your User space, and will be deleting the redirects. You can find it at User:Skyler1534/United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project. Rick K 00:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Great Job!

You're doing a great job, which leads me to wonder if you're an attorney or just a law buff. Either way, thanks for the help -- this info deserves to be in Wikipedia in a good format.

Rlquall 19:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hope that you thought that I caught the gist of Missouri v. Holland. If you can read the decisions and get their message, you may need to go into a field related to law or into law itself. The major cases need to be here in a format accessible to the public. I remembered Missour v. Holland from when I was in college as an example of Federal supremacy, and it needed an article. When I see a major case that I'm aware of and could write something constructive about, I try and do it, but sometimes know nothing of the case. I'm an insurance agent, which is, believe me, a law-related field.

Rlquall 00:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SCOTUS Case Article Improvement Project

Thanks for bringing this project to my attention and inviting me to join it. I claim no particular expertise but, like Rlquall, think that having good articles on all the major U.S. Supreme Court cases would be very beneficial. I'd be happy to help participate in the project, which should prove very educational. Jacob1207 00:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases

You might want to merge your project with this Wikiproject, or at least check it out. Yours is more detailed at the moment I think —siro χ o 09:52, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Since it seems yours is much more complete, and you've already done more work, I think your project should replace the "abandoned" WikiProject. You could either be bold and decide to do this, or talk with one of the users who worked on the old project. There is a list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_US_Supreme_Court_Cases&action=history). At least one of the major contributors is active on Wikipedia, if not the project.

The only major problem with replacin the old project is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases also deals with Justices of the Supreme Court. You might want to split that off into a child or sibling project. Since there is very little text about it it shouldn't be tough, at least. Also, instead of just deleting the page for the project, it should probably be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases/old or something, that way its not lost in case those who abandoned it want to see it again. Then your page can be moved to the Wikiproject location. This page replacement requires one deletion (of a redirect), so if you want it done contact me or another admin.

I have one remaining concern. I'm sure you address these questions that are asked int he current WikiProject, but you should probably make them more explicit in the "Desired outline" section of your project, so anyone joining or helping had a little more guidance:

"Analysis. Why is the case important? What problems did this resolve (or create?) What have scholars written or said about the case?"

So thats my thoughts on it, you don't need to make it a WikiProject yet if you dont' want to, but I think it can only help.

—siro χ o 21:44, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Straton Oakmont Inc., etc.

Thanks. I guess I wasn't looking at the article very carefully. Mateo SA | talk 04:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Request for admin status

Hi Skyler, I think that your self-nomination may not go through. If you give it another month I'll nominate you - just remember to stay frosty-cool (don't engage in edit-wars, make silly comments and Don't Feed The Trolls) and you'll be fine. I reckon you totally deserve the status, however you just need to give it a bit of time. If you want, give me a reminder in a month (I can be a bit absentminded). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. I have withdrawn my nomination. Skyler 11:41, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Patrick, for feedback!

Very helpful links. --NathanHawking 02:52, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Oyez,! Oyez,! Oyez!

Greetings, Skyler! I've done a bunch of Supreme Court articles myself, such as John McLean, Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions, and put the predecessor/successor tags on all the associate justices. I came across your Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases page and wonder if you might take a look at my article on the case Wheaton v. Peters. (I did the article because one, I'm interested in copyright, and, two, Mr. Justice McLean, who is from my neck of the woods, wrote the opinion.) No one else has touched it and I'd appreciate any feedback. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:06, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind word. I blush. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:12, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Being Julia

Thanks for the info re the link to the German wikipedia. I'd noticed someone adding these tags before, but never noticed the in other languages bit on the left. Now I know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Yeah, this is Noah Peters, thanks for your message, I'd like to join your Supreme Court project; as you may be able to tell I am sort of a Supreme Court junkie.

re. Atheism

Thank-you for your note - I will do so. I have been offline for the last two days due to an unexpected bout of inlaws. (not unpleasant!) (20040302)

Thank-you very much for your ongoing work. I have just finished commenting on the article, and, before editing anything at Atheism/DR I have put my comments at User:20040302/Atheism comment I am happy that they are public. (20040302 15:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC))

PS, feel free to use masculine terms when refering to me; thank-you for being aware of gender. (20040302)

Okay - I've had a first stab at Atheism/DR. I feel that there is a lot more good stuff to say about atheism, but hey. You may find the comments helpful as well. I am not particularly stron either way regarding the paragraph on Judaic views, but do feel that it is a bit unbalanced, so left it out for the time being. (20040302 17:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC))

RfM

Hello. I just wanted to let you know, I have removed your comment to Raul on the Requests for mediation page. I know this is an unusual and always controversial action, but I feel that in this case it is best - in part simply to be even handed in responding to comments in that thread. I hope you understand. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atheism

Thanks for the dispute resolution on Atheism. The reason I withdrew is that from my perspective the issue was clear, the POV of those who wished to limit the definition was as I see it, very blatant.

My wider concern is that those with a dogmatic POV agenda will usually tend to win the day and I'd sooner focus on how best to address this root cause rather than waste my precious time arguing around in circles with folks whose intellectual integrity I seriously doubt. I'm not quite sure where to start on addressing the wider Wikipedia issue in this regards, I shall ruminate--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Skyler1534, the article on atheism will become a desolate wasteland of ignorance. I'm amazed you actually cater to naivete. Your disregard of the etymological, epistemological, historical, literary, and legal evidence for the maintenance of the article's state is astounding. Since you've set precedence for the destruction of NPOV articles, I suppose the Christianity article can now be legitimately introduced as a "cult of mindless, dogmatic, and deluded fools." Obviously POV, obviously false, obviously subjective, and obviously biased. All these things are obviously attributes of 20040302's (and his cronies') arguments.

Of course I'm not willing to negotiate. I don't negotiate with neither "factual terrorists" nor simple-minded pseudo-intellectuals.

Read these essays before you say your job is "done."

The scope of atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm) by George H. Smith, from his 1980 book Atheism: The Case Against God (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087975124X/ref=ase_metavirus-20/002-3149540-8468860?v=glance&s=books), regarded as the "Bible" of atheism

Defining atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm) by George H. Smith, from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies

The Presumption of Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm) by Anthony Flew (1984), regarded by George H. Smith as a signature piece on atheism

By the way, as you can see the primary defenders of atheism left the silly theistic debate: Andrevan, Nick-in-South-Africa, and myself. Bryan will most likely leave as well. If that's what you consider "dispute resolution" and doing your job, you're mistaken. Thanks for nothing. Adraeus 11:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to dispute resolution closure

I think the tone of Adraeus' critique here is too harsh and rather unkind to Skyler.

The trouble with moderation is that it seeks to be neutral and to take a non-committal position between two POVs. Alas the reality is often that one side is entirely correct and the other wholly wrong, and that is the case here as anyone who has taken on board the arguments presented and/or knows about the topic will attest and Adraeus' references above only drive this home further, the argument that the definition of Atheism should include both the meaning of Positive and Negative Atheism, and that is the point; is completely, utterly and overwhelmingly crushing.

One pedantic but important point on Adraeus' diatribe above - I did not seek to be one of the "primary defenders of Atheism", indeed I didn't defend Atheism or Atheists at all, not a whiff of it! I only sought to ensure that the definition of the term was correct and full in Wikipedia.

His references and point on "factual terrorism" and "simple minded pseudo intellectuals" was accurate, if again a tad harsh.

One failure of Skyler is that he did not properly encapsulate the dispute, cut to it's essence, define it in clear, simple prose. My and I'm pretty certain Adreus' dispute here was that the general definition of Atheist should encompass both the meaning of Positive Atheist and Negative Atheist. Sam Spade and others sought to have the general definition only include Positive Atheism (I’ve checked some of Sam Spade's other writing and this rather supports what I posited in the Atheism discussion page about him having an agenda and being driven by seeing the term Atheist as a pejorative).

Next time I would advise Skyler starting the dispute resolution by defining the dispute, and getting agreement by the protagonists on the essence of what the dispute is. One then can start, on the basis of agreement, which increases your chance of success from a human psychology point of view as well as positioning the dispute to be addressed methodically. Skyler's effort at defining the dispute were frankly lackluster. They were unfocussed, wishy washy, and plain wrong, so his attempt at moderation was alas doomed from the start.

Anyway my interest is in addressing the Wiki process which seems to favour dogmatists with an agenda, rather than arguing against dogmatists with an agenda, which is generally a fruitless endevour! --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on Atheism

I know it didn't turn out well, but I think that your efforts to try to get it to turn out well were great. I don't think you should blame yourself that things went badly: I think it's just one of those hotbutton issues where it's very difficult to come to something all sides agree on.

The way you conducted yourself is a credit to you, and I hope you get your adminship next time around, since from what I've seen there you certainly deserve it for keeping cool under fire. Shane King 13:32, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I thank you as well for your efforts, though I don't really think they would have worked even if the others and I had hung around. Personally, I do not mind the article as it stands now, and I'm not too worried about what Sam Spade would like to do it. I don't know, however, what ShaneKing and 20040302 want to do... but it was causing me unneeded headaches, so I'll leave it to anyone else who wishes to fight POV. Andre (talk) 20:20, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm Andrevan and Adraeus couldn't leave for more than a week after all. I don't really know if anything has changed either. Seems to be a good free-for-all wildfire that won't be damped down for some time yet. If there weren't a whole load of affiliated links for the fire to spread to (e.g. weak atheism ), I would suggest protecting even the talk pages - the whole shebang - for a cooldown period.

Progress is unforgivingly slow. But maybe there is progress of some sort. The sheer stamina required by all core discussants should help to provide some concessions. (20040302 10:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Advocate

Skyler, thank you for your response on my request for an advocate. I was unsure, and your answer gave me helpful information. Another user, not an advocate, saw my frustration elsewhere and is trying to help. I will see how that works out and withdraw my request for the time being at least. Maurreen 07:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

adminship

thank you Skyler. I didn't feel at all that you somehow voted against me, and I understand your reasons. It is true that I have not a terrible lot of experience with WP community building etc., but I hope I will become more involved in the future, and I certainly indend to make my contributions as useful as possible. regards, dab 10:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abington School District v. Schempp

How do you suggest that we improve this article? It seems like a massive POV essay. Your feedback on this would be very much appreciated! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some stuff

I didn't want to edit the Supreme Court to do list myself, but I should let you know that I've written Diamond v. Chakrabarty and expanded Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios - if you think they're up to standard then you could remove them from the list. Evercat 03:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA candidate

Salve, Skyler1534!
I nominated myself for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2 and would appreciate your vote. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:52, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Salve, Skyler1534!
I wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your support in my successful RFA candidacy. It was very gratifying to see the kind remarks posted in the debate. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause

Hello, I am soliciting comments from all those Wikipedians whose edits to legal articles I've noticed. I've been editing Equal Protection Clause, submitted it to peer review, and now have nominated it for featured article status. Please tell me what you think of it, and if you support it, please add your support at the page written above (or, of course, add your objections). Thanks so much, Hydriotaphia 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Call for AMA election

AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting

As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 20:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

COORDINATOR'S OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

The first AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 23, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA (Miami/Montreal) Time, 11 AM Pacific NA (Los Angeles/Vancover)Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend. — © Alex756 01:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logs of first AMA Membership meeting

You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

"The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

How many individuals did you help as an advocate
What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey

OFFICIAL AMA THIRD MEETING NOTICE

The second AMA IRC Membership meeting was held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Meeting_%28suggested_topics%29#New_Membership_Meeting_Call) that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supreme court question

I have something which I'd like your input on. The Surpeme Court case Small v. United States, decided today, is currently in the 2004 in law category. It was argued in 2004 and decided in 2005 so should it be in the 2004 cat, the 2005 cat or both? Yes I know this is a small picky detail. I thought you'd like to decided this since you started the wikiproject. Broken Segue 20:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Skyler1534"