Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 7 February 2010

here?

Talkback

Prose072/_contribsReplied here? 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We are told to assume good faith but I find it very difficult to do so when you post the same ill-formatted rubbish into half a dozen articles. I have blocked you briefly but you may still edit this page to explain what you are trying to do. — ] (talk · contribs) 05:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New to editing wikipedia, but used it for years...What have I done incorrectly..statement follows.. I am trying to update the facts about the Senate rules that has been deleted, omitted or otherwise hidden from the American people. I have only posted to pages that are pertinent to Facts of the issues and law. there is very little information available for viewing and the edits to the pages I am making belong to the American People.. My edits are currently under construction, however, they need to be placed in certain pages that reflect these rules in reference to the constitution and other related information that should be linked to each other. you can not have an encyclopedia and obtain from providing the facts and links to those facts as my page is under construction. If there is a current issue that is displayed in a page on this issue as I have reviewed for the past week, I have noticed that this Factual information has been left out on the most important pages necessary.. Otherwise the American public has been provided with a HOAX of information selective of a few when wikipedia itself provided me with these facts that I have otherwise found to be TRUE and ABSENT in the necessary pages. This is NOT vandalism, It's an attempt to present the Facts in relation to the Topic. My interest is to correct and update those pages that Omit these Facts in direct relation to the subject matter. If I am doing it in a manner that is not appropriate. Please inform me of the proper way, however, you can not provide information to the public and then call it true and correct when there is a Standing precedent by the US Supreme Court that says otherwise, therefore to portray the image of information in certain blocks that are missing these important topics of FACTS does not allow the Truth of information to be reviewed. My intent is to go through my updates and place them in a more appropriate format in the pages that are in direct relation to these terms to be corrected to TRUTHS. They are incomplete in posting, but necessary to be viewed to provide Factual Truths to the Definitions in subject matter. All the pages that I have posted on are interlinked with the necessary information to be brought to the attention of the direct subject matter, not to be hidden and provide half truths to a definition and operation as otherwise stated. I should be allowed to update these facts and if I have posted them in the incorrect manner in page script I will post them in the appropriate manner as instructed, however,my intent is clear to go back to each page and finely tune the information in an added or appropriate category as these issues are all interlinked. So what do I do and How do I do it not to be considered a vandal? |decline=I'm always very wary of new users that come bearing The Truth. While I doubt vandalism was your intention, your edits fail to meet the standards of the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, they are filled with with violations of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and appear (in my opinion) to be patently disruptive. I fail to see a compelling reason to unblock you at this time. Trusilver 09:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Unblock on hold|1=RHaworth|2=Please see discussion below|3=—DoRD ?talk) 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Okay..After further review by Trusilver, in which refered me to other isues instead of vandalism. which makes since to me, I understand why I was blocked, so that I could be further educated on the policies on how scripting is to be done, as well as providing factual information supported by links, which I thought I was doing in the appropriate manner, but I was not. I believe that I have to edit in completion at the time I edit.

Trusilver also has referred me to understanding blocks page and it says to give evidence... like I previously stated and Trusilver is wary of, which I understand being wary, my research began with wikipedia, but certain definitions should contain the information that I am providing For example if you goto http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search/U_S_v._BALLIN,_144_U.S._1_(1892)_144_U.S._1 this link will refer to definitions that are the beginning of my source. These pages allowed me to find these Truths that have not been associated with the Page that I have currently under construction as follows also being blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/U_S_v._BALLIN,_144_U.S._1_(1892)_144_U.S._1 and the pages in the previous source of the first link. The second link is a page that I am creating, not any other person.

The thing that I am trying to do is Build a Wiki page on this source that has also been blocked and associate it with all the pages that should have the association, however does not and also build that Misplaced Pages page for further information, such as the entire opinion of the Footnotes and statements in part on the pages to the link I provided which all practicality states in part the same thing , just about, as I have with a source. Well I am trying to bring that source to life in a wiki link as previously provided.

All be it, I have done so in the incorrect script manner and will not do so again, and I am sorry for this inconvenience to wikipedia and promise to learn how to link these scripts in manner of the Wiki script editor tool that I just learned of and build my page as well. I will begin with just using related sources to link my page if thats okay until I complete my page and then create an edit within the wikipedia outlines as Trusilver has provded me.

I meant no harm and did provide factual links, just not in the correct form and manner. I am new to this part of scripting and tools. It was a battle just trying to figure out how to to a review of a block let alone all the html uses.

However, I have to ask, is the a help forum that I can refer to that has a realtime help issue with other users so that I may not fall into this error again, or can I just use my discussion page in the manner as we are using to get advice on how to properly post an edit. Also, am I allowed to continue building my wikipage on the link I previously provided, as I am the original creator of that page? I am truly sorry this confusion has caused a problem, but in all actuality, it was for my own education benifit as I am learning how to actually post to a wiki page when I always wondered, now I know to follow a format that is available to review and there are people here to help when needed.

I guess I'll shut-up now and wait to see if I still need to review further rules that I may have missed, I do have to say vandalism as Trusilver agreed was not my intent and my intent is to build a wikipage linking information that is already posted as I provided evidence of in the link and also bring that source to wikipedia on the page I am building and associate it with all the definitions that it applies to in the subject matter and I will do so in the guidence of the wikipedia information Trusilver and RHarworth has provided on pages and scripts I reviewed on the links provided and addition rules that I am learning.

Thanks for the help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that this user's unblock request has the same problem as her contributions for me: Although very long, and quite complex, the prose style is more or less incomprehensible. I have two degrees in English literature, and no idea what this user is trying to communicate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Although my contributions are not being made in this discussion, I am only making my plea in a rough draft, unedited, nor associated in a final form of contribution, only making a plea that I was incorrect in the form of posting my script as Trusilver explained to me. My contribution are not in final draft on any form and only supported in clips of a source. When discussing Law and the nature of it statement, The Courts do not them selves (referring to my wiki page I am creating) present statement in conclusive English, however in sentence fragments and statements and Key phrases. English Literature and the LSAT in review of issues as a matter of law are not one in the same, therefore, law is another language in itself, and all I am attempting to do is bring this source to life. I have not done so in the appropriate script manner, nor have I tried to be intellectual in this plea, I am accepting the Fact that I have posted in the inappropriate script manner. I never said I was a genius, but I can see daylight from dark. I am not trying to make this appeal a Language skills assessment, just a simple rough draft of my wrongdoing and say it will not happen again, and that I will follow the appropriate rules of posting and the help pages to allow for editing. I am not trying to get in a contest with anyone. In the Contrary, this statement should not be of one that is a test, rather one of acknowledgment that I have posted in the incorrect manner, which I have done. My final drafts will be of the up most manner in script posting as required. My initial editing and post as I said before was in rough form and my intent was to go back and clearly inset the information in the appropriate form, however, that form I now understand must be in final form of editing, not rough display. However, I was initially under the impression that the information was pertinent to be know in those isolated definitions. Moreover, It's my clear understanding that when I post to a page for edit that pre-exist, I must do so in wikipedia guidelines of script, however, the link I provided above in the second for is a page I am creating from scratch. My error lies in the manner in which I posted edits to other pages and the manner I scripted them in rough form with the intent to come back and clean the script up in final form, but now I know I must post in Final form to other pages from the outset. In otherwords, I have stated I will not follow that process again, rather the wikipedia stlye as I have been presented with to follow. --Prose072 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously; don't write to try to impress us, because it isn't working well. Can you explain it as you would explain it to an eight-year-old? Just simple, clear English? Simple, clear English that most people can understand is the kind of writing we like best. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention RHaworth Your Text at the Top of the Page on the below comment disappeared, now is saying the unblock processed is being abused,,,I do not know how to send a message waiting to you. You had a highlighted statement on #10 and a request to post my text as I did further below ==

I thought I did that" explain it as an eight year old could understand", However I will try again.

1. As I just stated, "nor have I tried to be intellectual in this plea" as to the statement of impressing anyone, I am not trying to do that at all, just clear the issue up as follows.

2. I screwed up in the way I posted my script in editing. I now understand why and how I screwed up. I am new to editing wiki pages and learning the manner in which it is accomplished.

3. I will not let it happen again and I had no intent to harm any wiki page and agree to follow the terms and rules of wikipedia.

4. I am trying to build a wiki page and link related sources to that page I am building as I provided the link above and the text has been deleted in that link. 2nd link.

5. The first (1st) link provides evidence to the source I am using to update related sources and build my wikipedia page.

6. My efforts to edit were in good faith, but I was wrong in the manner which I had edited, now that I know not to edit in that manner anymore and will not again. I will use the wikiscript help pages and follow those instructions.

7. I meant no harm and will abide by the wiki terms and conditions and apologize for the issue I may have caused.

8. I would like to complete my page and start building it again and when editing other pages in relation to mine I will post the script in the correct manner.

9. I am here to contribute to unknown issues and provide factual references and sources to my postings and shed light on issues that are non-published and bring them o light in wikipedia. I have used wikipedia for years and have always been impressed with it's sources of information that it provides by contributors that share their knowledge base.

10. I hope I have explained this where it is simple and understanding of my faults that I intend to correct. In addition, I apologize for this matter that caused time that could have been better spent elsewhere instead of dealing with my fault of posting incorrectly by editing pages incorrectly in script style and would like to finish my page in the appropriate manner and link it correctly. --Prose072 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please post on this page the text of the page you are trying to build. — ] (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention RHaworth

RHaworth...your Text at the Top of the Page on the below comment disappeared, now is saying the unblock processed is being abused,,,I do not know how to send a message waiting to you. You had a highlighted statement on #10 above and a request to post my text as I did further below, Also someone said the block process is being abused, but I don't know, I have been trying to get a message to you, but do not know how to send a message direct to you page.

I was building this page...... http://en.wikipedia.org/U_S_v._BALLIN,_144_U.S._1_(1892)_144_U.S._1 using the following text and providing sources and interlinking the Supreme Court Opinion....

BTW...I do not know what happened to the text you place on the top of the page highlighting #10. It vanishied

Proposed text now transferred to User:Prose072/sandbox.

BWilkins

I have changed the multitude of unblock requests to discussions regarding unblock - they were an abuse of the unblock process. Further discussion can take place, and if consensus becomes positive, then a simple unblock request can be made. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion On the problem I am now having.

Administrator who blocked me posted a pictorial at the top of my page last night and asked me to post my text here.

the pictorial was in reference to my reasons for unblock, #10 and another one. When I posted the Text, it vanished.

I do not know how to send an alert to administrator RHaworth and everyone has gotten in the middle of this and I don't understand. It says to use html tags to get to that administrator, but is not...I'm LOST.

Reply

Quite simply, you have not produced an encyclopedia article. You have just cobbled together various source documents. My best recommendation is that you should publish this on your own website. — ] (talk · contribs) 16:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Unblock on hold|1=RHaworth|2=Please see discussion below|3=Prose072

Reply

I am trying to build this page (the one that was deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/U_S_v._BALLIN,_144_U.S._1_(1892)_144_U.S._1 )

To look like the following page. They are both Major US Supreme Ct. Rulings. http://en.wikipedia.org/Morrison_v._Olson

Will you help me or do I use the http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Article_wizard_2.0, will it help build the page? That's why I also put in there that the page was under construction.

By the Way...what happened to the text pictorials you posted as reason to the top of mytalk page..you know the clips of reasons above. They vanished?

OH, and how do I get a posting to Alert or send you a message when I reply to you? instead of block appeals?

Stop adding "unblock on hold" templates - these are not for you to use. He told you at the very top of this page that you may discuss the issues here. That means a) he is watching the page for replies, OR b) that other admins may also read your discussion and decide as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Okay...Thanks..So he will know when I post a reply? --Prose072 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He is not required to check, he is a volunteer like the rest of us. However, he does have a personal watch list. As well, all admins are effectively qualified to discuss your issues and decide on any unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And there isn't anything for him to say at the moment, since there's nothing here yet to indicate how unblocking you would make the encyclopedia better. If the case in question is notable, we might indeed need a good encyclopedia article explaining what it is and why it is significant, but you haven't demonstrated that you are likely to write such an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I finish dealing with these other issues I will complete the page and post it here for RHaworth, but I need outlines from corresponding cases.--Prose072 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

I think that even an eight-year old would readily spot the difference between your text, now in User:Prose072/sandbox, and Morrison v. Olson or any of the other cases in Category:United States Supreme Court cases.

What you should do now is:

• convert User:Prose072/sandbox into a Misplaced Pages article
• contact me or any established editor and ask us whether we think the article is fit to go live
• if so, that editor will move the article to United States v. Ballin which is the proper title for this article and already has two incoming links.

— ] (talk · contribs) 07:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Under construction

Thanks RHaworth... I see that you actually reviewed the notes. That's cool. Truesilver and BWilkins was helpful too. I am sure that I stirred up a mess, but no harm was intended and I again want to thank you and the others for helping me. I like wikipedia and hopefully I will be able to contribute as well as enjoy reading the pages as have enjoyed for many years.

I understand my page is incomplete and that's why I stated "under-construction", however, I do understand now not to launch a page until it's ready in finality.

So when I want to contact someone, do I just post on their talk page or is there a way that I can us an html to send them a message from a talk page? I know you directed me to yours, but how do I send a message or contact other administrators if they are not watching any particular talk page?

Thanks again. --72.213.198.19 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)--72.213.198.19 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now you remain blocked to prevent the disruption you were causing. Most of us are willing to help, within reason. For example, your article cannot contain the entire text of a specific decision, nor a commentary on it. The article can contain cited description of the important and notability of the decision. If after a few days of work (and I do mean a few days) you think you have a valid draft, use the {{helpme}} template here on your talkpage, followed by the specific question that you have. It is not appropriate to abuse the help me template. Ensure you have read the helpful links and information at the top of this page before you ever use the help me. Also, as I already mentioned, many people are watching this talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool...I basically have to put it into context, which I have alot done already in my Petition to the Court, however, I will draft the thesis on the case to show it's notability.

BTW...If I am still blocked, how do I contact RHaworth on the contact me link he provided above on that talk page?

I am cool with being blocked if it's necessary, however, I do not plan on editing anything except my own work in the Sandbox or communication on the talk pages as instructed until I am ready to launch as directed. So am I being prevented from communicating with others on talk pages? Oh and if I need to view Text stlye in a page for html purposes without editing, Just by opening a page under edit for viewing (tutorial) purposes on what html tag is appropriate from a similar page, am I allowed to view that style by just opening the edit page "WITHOUT" saving any changes? Thanks again --Prose072 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins: the block had expired 12 hours before you wrote the your message above.

Prose072: I note that you are continuing to edit this copy of the article at dKosopedia. Fine. I would make the suggestion: do not add anything to the article which is not in your own words. When it is ready, we can copy the article here. I also note this vandalism.

"Do I just post on their talk page?" Yes! "How do I contact other administrators if they are not watching any particular talk page?" I think you might be trying to say: "how do I identify other editors (not just admins) who might be able to help? Work through Category:United States Supreme Court cases looking at edit histories. You will probably soon identify editors who are clearly interested in this subject. Neutrality (talk · contribs · logs) seems a likely person on the strength of these edits.

I have moved User:Prose072/sandbox to Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/United States v. Ballin in the hope that others may notice and turn it into an article. — ] (talk · contribs) 04:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You claim above to have been using Misplaced Pages "for years". So how is it that your contributions are so far removed from normal Misplaced Pages content? — ] (talk · contribs) 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MY using wikipedia has always been as a starting point for resourceful information, never contributions. I beieve that I stated that above, just not is those exact words. I will be clear, " I have used wikipedia for years, as many do in this day and age. I have used wikipedia as a resource tool to discovery information, however, I have not made contributions until now." --Prose072 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Stated above (quote ":I like wikipedia and hopefully I will be able to contribute as well as enjoy reading the pages as I have enjoyed for many years."

BTW...thanks for the move..I have my notes and thesis to make the page and can do so in a matter of a few hours now, however I was not feeling well today so I napped and just got up, my phone was going off. I will start putting time into the page little by little again tomorrow. From what I already have reviewed and the notes with resourced links referenced to the case and history as well as controversies, I should be able to launch shortly after I start putting a little time into the format. That's all I really have to do is scripting into format and compared with the Morrison v Olson case, just to launch in format will not be hard to place into order. So give me a couple of days and I'll get'er done.

OH .... as to quoting text from case citations, as long as I provide credit to the quoted section to the source of information when quoting and in Italics of the text, that not fine. Every thing else will defiantly be my own words, however, when you quote a case citation in a brief statement as in reference to case opinion, the case is always cited as the source of info and when the case in cited either in the beginning without the entire citation it usually follows by infra-being it follows or supra- meaning as stated above. The post I have made have only been Key notes of the case, not my own words, except I have made comment to it in conversation and I also have it in my own words in the Petition being drafted for judicial review on the issue. Another case I will cite in here will be United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932)

in reference to the statement

" As the construction to be given to the rules affects persons other than members of the Senate, the question presented is of necessity a judicial one." 'United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932)

I that link on Neutrality (talk · contribs · logs)... Thats right up my ally, but really like everything. I haven't done the posting in wikipedia until now. I have alot of things I have written for myself and shared with others, just never really got into posting them. But now I am amped up on this issue and want to this case back to life. The Courts still continue to use it as a precedent, however the Senate Fails to comply when the House allows it's order. I am so tired the Senate using this as an excuse, not just the one party in particular. This has been going on for nearly 60 solid years and has gotten worse every year. In is the most corrupt branch in the union.

When this is done, I have another one on Joseph Story concerning the economy then and now...a clear precedent when everyone say there is not one. Justice Story hit the nail on the head in an opinion (commentary) in 1830.

They are both issues of importance, but in order to get anything done we have to correct this issue first.

However, below is just some of the "argument" below on the issue but bits and pieces will wind up in there as it "Explains" the notability in a "neutral position" of the case as it has been defined by the court the past 100 years.

I just want a government that works.

Argument

U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) 144 U.S. 1. was necessary in order to prevent abuses of the U.S. SENATE, which historically operates lawfully, however it is currently an unbalanced abuse of power that is in violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers where the Minority can thereby Veto legislation that would otherwise be passed by a simple majority present of the quorum call needing at least 2/3 of it's members present under the Constitution as stated by U.S. Supreme Ct. U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) 144 U.S. 1.

Therefore, The Court stipulates that the Constitution states that only 2/3 of it's members have to be present in order for the Senate to pass legislation. In other words. the power of the Senate arises when 2/3 are present and then a simple majority will pass a bill of legislation.

'Currently out of 100 members

67 Senators Present / 34 votes yeas vs. 33 nays then legislative passes (vise versa)'

No matter what and which party is in power, The Senate Rules are the problem.

The U.S. Senate seems to think (Rather Know) that Americans are ignorant to what their actual constitutional powers are thus violating our Constitutional Rights in use of Senate Rule XXII and V.

The Senate Rules "Obstruct" passage of legislation, any legislation. Moreover, Even the Federal Statute of Reconciliation is unlawful as is is controlled in limitation of what can be passed by the Senate Rules overstepping the Constitution.

We have an Aristocracy, Not a Democracy being that the Senate has a silent control that allows a Veto of legislation whether is Democratic or Republican.

The US Supreme Court has already stated in U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) 144 U.S. 1 that The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights,

It only takes a simple majority with 2/3 (67) Senators present to pass legislation in the US Senate, NOT 60 votes, NOR when 41 votes cast can it block legislation since it creates a VETO POWER that takes powers aways from the President and away from the VP by removing VP the authority to Vote if the votes cast are equally divided. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises. U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) 144 U.S. 1

Thus a Separation of Powers exist creating a 4th branch "silent" that has VETO power playing an executive role in the U.S. Senate Violating, again, your constitutional rights.

Senate Rule XXII controlled by Rule V in the U.S. SENATE takes executive powers away from the office of the President of the United States and Vice President and creates a "silent fourth branch" of government that is answerable to no one. The broad powers of the U.S. Senate under rule XXII is currently easily abused, and corrupted by partisanship creating an Aristocracy over a Democracy.

dKosopedia

Hey RHaworth... dkosopedia is not wikipedia...

"It is an encyclopedia built with Media wiki technology as a collaborative outgrowth, begun in April of 2004, of the dailyKos community of political junkies. As such it proudly brings along decidedly strong points of view."

That's our playground and is not held to the same scrutiny as wikipedia. It is for Strong Political Views...

It's not even wikipedia, it is just built with the same technology. I know you are not an administrator on that site. I am following your rules as you requested and want contribute to wikipedia. All my notes are gone and they can not be recovered, at least I have a backup...I had a thesis posted in there, not just these stupid notes.

Anyways..I am working on that page, the one with the egg on it, but I had to go and clean up that mess over-there..

That's a Left-Wing Blog, Not an encyclopedia. That is for defining Personal Political Views like an OP-ED ( Opinion Editorial)

I appreciate all your help, and I was going back there to edit my post anyways, as I just did. We may not view Cloture there as it is defined here. My Notes are gone, but I can retrieve them..You did make a good point though, I didn't see that error I made on the page creation... Is there a way I can correct "page names" or do I have to create a new page? I didn't see I typed the citation twice. I was in a hurry that night.--Prose072 (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I had great problems registering on this site:

• every time it tried to send me a confirmation e-mail it gave a message saying that the e-mail had failed.
• I tried to leave a message about this but I found ...
• there was no village pump or similar page
• even if there was, I would not be able to edit it! May I suggest that as a minimum, the dKosopedia_talk should be editable by unconfirmed users
• eventually, I realised that the e-mails had been sent and the error message was spurious. The IP address in the confirmation may give you a clue: "Someone, probably you from IP address 127.0.0.1, has registered an account "RHaworth" with this e-mail address on dKosopedia."
• it took two tries to get the confirmation link accepted.
• Finally dKosopedia:About#How to Submit makes no mention of e-mail confirmation!

— RHaworth 23:06, 6 February 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.198.19 (talk)