text:
User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive2

 * You can always archive old talk (if you care to archive it) by copying the wikitext into a new page like User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive1 or something like that. Subpages are great. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

i dont actually know how to do that, but if you want to, feel free. thanks tho! Gabrielsimon 08:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I clicked through to that link to get an edit page, then went back to the last version of this page before you blanked it and opened the edit page. Then I just copy-n-pasted the old edit text into the new "archive1" page. I finished by adding a link to this page so it can be easily found. — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! Gabrielsimon 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
I did not revert your edit, only moved it to the talk page for discussion. This article is very long and is often expanded quite casually. Many of the issues these editors bring up have been discussed and resolved on the talk page, and then information has been added to the article. Your edit seems to be on a unique subject and would probably benefit from discussion. I myself have a number of questions about your statement, and would like to see you expand and clarify your opinion. I believe others who frequent the page will have questions too. Citing sources and weeding out simple opinion on a religious subject is important in maintaining NPOV, as per Wikipedia protocol. So, thank you for your interest in Joseph Smith, and please feel free to use the talk page. Peace. WBardwin 00:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quasi-vandalism
Just noting your contribution to Mormon...please be careful in the future. Thanks ~ Dpr 04:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

have removed comments from an anon user who is likly not being as frinedly as possible.

Hi. I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Please see Talk:Mormon (society). Tom Haws 14:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Gab, you have been very active today editing. Religious topics when treated without respect can cause pretty hard feelings between fellow editors. Your comments might best be first addressed on the respective talk pages. I would urge you to be thoughtful and respectful, but continue to ask your questions. In reading the archives you will also gain some knowledge about the rather lengthy discussions in the past. I hope to continue to see your edits. Best of luck! Storm Rider 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major Changes
Hello Gabe, my reversion was not a reflection of your point of view; only that many of your points have already been made in the past and have been throughly discussed. The current article is the reflection of a high degree of give and take. However, before making further changes I would advise the following: state your concerns on the Talk page (you may find ready answers from people), look for areas in the article that most closely relate to your comments and make them there, and lastly, attempt to make coherent points that are well thought out. Many of your edits could have been easily answered on the talk page had you made them there first. Please don't give up making edits; a reversion, in this instance, is a request for conversation and is not a personal attack. Continue to be patient with those of us who have been working on this article for many months and some for years. Storm Rider 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabe, I went back to the article and reread it again. Your comments might more appropriately placed in the Alternative thoughts regarding the origins fo the Book fo Mormon. I think you will find similar thoughts to your comments there. You may just want to edit those comments. I would encourage you to enter a new topic in the article that addresses Book of Mormon prophecy at a place you think is appropriate. Some of these articles can be long, but get the gist of entire article and then edit. Good luck. Storm Rider 01:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle and No original research
Gabe, regarding the "vampire lifestyle" article; please see the "no original research" policy; you may know these people personally (which I think you implied in a comment on that talk page), but that's not good enough as a source. Nor, come to that, is my personal experience of anything: both count as "original research". Where there is significant controversy, we should both be prepared to document our presentation of various points of view with verifiable third party cites. Whilst our viewpoints clearly differ, I look forward to working with you in the spirit of NPOV to improve the article. -- The Anome 00:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi, Gabriel. I welcome you heartily to the Wikipedia community, and I hope you stay long and make many great contributions. It is very important to keep in mind as you go about editing that the quality of Wikipedia is in your hands. As Smokey the Bear might say, "Only you can prevent encyclopedia entropy." Thanks for your help. Tom Haws 20:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Check your grammar and spelling before you hit the Submit button.
 * Read an article and consider carefully how it is organized before contributing new material.
 * Listen to other editors.
 * Get up to speed on community etiquette by visiting the Requests for Comment page and assisting other editors to resolve their differences.

Reverting
Hi, Gabriel. Just a note to let you know you aren't allowed to revert any article more than three times each day. If you do, you get blocked from contributing. If you have trouble with an editor or a group of editors who won't let you make quality contributions, what you have to do is get help from other people to make your case, and discuss the issue on article talk pages. Tom Haws 23:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Gabe, You have been active again and your edits are improving. Maybe a better understanding of Mormon history is appropriate. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates. He used an instrument called the Urim & Thummim to assist in the translation. You might be familiar with these sacred oracles worn by Jewish priests in the Old Testament. If you would like references, please let me know and I would be happy to send them to you. Wiki is not a place for arguments, but a place for knowledgable people to assist others in learning. Although you are obviously interested in Mormonism, I am beginning to wonder if you have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. Feel comfortable in asking questions or read some of the sites mentioned on each of the articles that you have editied; both pro and con. Some of them are excellent. Storm Rider 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabe, Some of us can get a little brash when edits are made and requests for discussion is ignored. Please go back to the JS and P page and present your case on the talk page. You are better than what you are presenting to the community. You have a point of view, but you need to defend your position. Simply making edits and then not explaining yourself does not help. Also, forgive comments from others regarding your spelling and grammer. I would recommend writing your comments first in Word or some other word processing program, doing a spell check, and then copying it into Wiki. You will find more success and others will not be put off by mis-spellings and will need to confront your position. I hope that helps. Storm Rider 29 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)

i thought that removing the lkawyer esque speak about the meaning of words seemed aprropriate, as it is the stuff liars hide behond, my othr edits seem to be postiive enough for the articles merits, yer that MrWhipple fellow seems to be belligerant in how he wishes to remove what i say. i suspect religous zeal. would so,meone please revert it to whzt i put, please? Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 18:34 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
You have broken the three revert rule, and unfortunately as a result you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Please use this time to reflect on your actions - the truth or falsity of the information is a secondary issue to how disruptive your actions are (not to mention taking such things from a book on witchcraft would likely be a biased source). I would suggest that you take the time out and thereafter discuss it in Talk:God with the rest of the community as to why your edit should be placed in, assuming that you haven't already alienated them. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

 * Interesting. You have been for the same thing three times now.  Once by Bishonen, once by khaosworks, and now once by me.  I've since unblocked you (bishonen's block expires in....well, about now).  Your fellow soldier in the revert war, User:MrWhipple, was not blocked so his 1 day blocking starts now.

 * In the future, I recommend that you consider this an electric fence and do not cross it. It disrupts wikipedia and solves nothing. Take differences to the talk page. Cburnett June 30, 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Curious
I noticed the little spat of reverts on the GWB article, and for the life of me I can't tell any difference between them. Am I just missing something, or is the new wikiware still not sorted out? You can hit my IP to answer, or answer here, I'll check both. Thanks. -bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see, just the edit conflict thing, looks like a bunch of people were trying to revert the same vandalism and it just looked in the history like reverting each other. Feel free to delete this. -bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 03:15 (UTC)

edit summaries
Do not use misleading edit summaries; for example, characterizing the addition of questionable content as "reverting vandalism" is a misleading edit summary. If you persist in doing this, you may be blocked. Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 02:07 (UTC)

i removed the ape thing, and i undid the NON questionable ACTUAL quote. quoit being a baby. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

 * Someone else removed the "ape" thing. The only thing you did was add back a questionable quote, which in NO case amounts to "reverting vandalism".  You should never revert vandalism and add additional unrelated content in the same edit, or if you do you should be very clear that you are doing so in the edit summary.  In general, any edit with an edit summary that describes it as a "revert" that is not, in fact, an actual revert, is misleading.  Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 02:12 (UTC)

when i began editing the ape thing was still there, so as far as i knew i was removing it. EXCUUUSe me if someone beat me to it, gee3ze, calm the heck down. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

George W. Bush
I am urging you to please not reinsert that quote until this can be figured out on the talk page, otherwise this could very easily become a revert war since other users will probably remove the quote on sight. Jtkiefer July 1, 2005 02:41 (UTC)

seems fair. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Bush protected
The Bush page is protected now. Please do not edit it until the problems have been resolved on the Talk page. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)

the procsdure is as folows - discuss, then delete, so leave it be as i have put it, okay?? Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

 * Look, I don't like the 3RR, but please discuss the issue on the Talk page, or you're going to have to be blocked for a short period of time. OK? Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

the procedure as outlined in the rules is as i described abocve, i folow this, aside from delaing with vandalism, no one else seems to do this, why is that? Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

 * Breaking the 3RR twice in 3 days...you need to understand this rule better. A disagreement between you and other others is not vandalism. Cburnett July 1, 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Edits
Look Gabrielsimon, I'm not picking on you personally, only the edits. The Wikipedia will only be useful and accurate if credible sources are cited, otherwise the NPOV concept won't work. So that's why for articles as central to current events like God and George W. Bush are going to be scrutinized even more carefully. If I put in positive words about "W" without supporting proof, they would be stricken as well. So just make sure to cite good sources - reputable papers, credible gures, verifiable facts. Editorials and opinions have only so much use in an NPOV encyclopedia. Cheers, Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Discussion
Please see: Talk:God

 * As mentioned before, cite some sources - experts, books, whatever. That will provide a good starting point for discussion as to whether this is a substantiated claim. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Offensive edits? (reposted after deletion)
Hi, you appear to have removed my comments here. I'll repost them for your convenience.

I don't think it's that people are offended by your edits, per se. It's that many of your edits are disruptive to wikipedia. There is a pattern of your edits being reverted; this is probably for good reason. You should pay attention to the comments people are leaving you, stop breaking the rules, and try to learn to make good edits. Friday 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

Re: sources
Hi, instead of putting sources/citations into the edit summaries, why not put it into the article itself so people can weigh how valid they are? Fuzheado | Talk 3 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

Magizine/magazine
I think you should check your last edit where you changed the spelling "magazine" back to "magizine", which is incorrect. The URL is also http://www.genremagazine.com. Spelled with "magizine" it does not work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Wolf
To say this practise is both cowardly and unfair is actually a moral value judgment, and anyway, whether shot from a hellicopter or killed by one "diabolic creation" or another, the Wolves don't stand a chance, and it never is fair, because Wolves don't have instruments of death. El_C 6 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

though if the ersn was on foot the wolf could get away.. chasing a wolf with a he;licopter so that its too tired to move, then walking up to it and shooting it is brutal, and horrendous/ Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

I did not know the procedure involved exhuasting the Wolves first (!). Why would they do that? That is not humane, if they make the wolves exhaust themsleves due to fear of the hellicopter (which is a very terrifying thing, after all). Do you know much about this practice. If you bring citations, we can integrate that into the article. Disturbing. El_C 6 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/810567891?ltl=1120621476

that ones a bit biased, but its a starting point... Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Yeah, good start; 14,000+ signatories to the petition, that isn't insiginificant. El_C 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

==deleted comments with no usefull wording=

whoever adds this now deleted section sould pay attention. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Sigh. You're making a revert war on your own talk page. I'm no longer able to assume good faith on your part. I give up. Friday 6 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

its MY talk pagew. i have the right to make things go away if i do not want to see them on MY talk page. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

Stop editing my user page
Once again, I must ask you to stop editing my user page. Friday 6 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

if you would kindly remove insulting words from it, then sure. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
 * It is HIS page though. Its called the First amendment.--Kross July 8, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

so? im not american. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
This web site exists to create an encyclopedia. It's not a chat site, personal blog or opinion board.
 * You can't upload amusing images of a rodent humping your face.
 * You can't delete information about people who oppose a particular practice or lifestyle.

Please review these links:
 * 1) What Wikipedia is not
 * 2) Neutral point of view

If you abide by site policy, you might enjoy volunteering here, but if you don't then you could quickly wear out your welcome. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:50 (UTC)

i didnt ipload any such image, nor did i delete anu such information. the image was placed, if you look into the history of this page, by someone other then i. amnd i do not find the image amusing. as for the information bit, i took out irrelevant data, as far as i know. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Please Use the Talk Pages
Please use the talk pages before you make (a) drastic deletions to a page (your edits on Jospeh Smith) or (b) controversial changes to a page (your edits on wolves). We want to make sure that Wikipedia is a good resource for everyone, and everyone has to play fair and nice. - grubber 2005 July 6 20:13 (UTC)

my change to wolves was not contraversial, it was facts. as for smiths pages, i no longer care, as the article is likly unsalvagable and is likly to be deleted. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

 * You need to understand our NPOV policy. Have you read it yet? This edit betrays a lack of understanding: you're being less than neutral here.

 * If you think wolf hunting is cruel, or that governments should ban it, fine. Locate a source which calls wolf hunting cruel and put that in the article. Mention campaigns to ban wolf hunting in the article. But don't make the article say - or even hint - that wolf hunting is bad.

 * I'd rather teach you than, er, "throw you to the wolves" as some others have suggested. You do want to contribute to this volunteer encyclopedia, don't you? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

i didnt mention a moral judgment, i said it was unfari, then i dexcribed the process of arial wolf hunting, to a tee. if someone thinnks thats POV, instead of the blatent truth, which is what i put there, then its thier POV that tells them so. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

The fact that multiple people have reverted your edits means it is controversial, despite how true you believe these things to be. Just take it to the talk pages first; otherwise edit wars ensue. - grubber 2005 July 6 20:31 (UTC)

people need to know HOW people uisually hunt wolvs, so that they know the gorey details, becyuse yes, ariel wolf hunting is totrally unfair, and quite heartless. do you agree with this thought? ( if so, then hlep me out a bit) Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

The things you describe are terrible, but Wikipedia is not a forum for "gory details." Words like "gory," "heartless," "unfair" are opinions and emotions, not facts. I think the abuse is already in the wolf article. Maybe put a link to a page that describes the abuses for people who want to know more. That sound fair? - grubber 2005 July 6 20:38 (UTC)

Have you read NPOV yet? You're not getting the concept here. Wikipedia isn't about debating what's fair or not. Find a forum for that. Saying something is "unfair" is a value judgement, and POV. Friday 6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)

so in essance when we are talking about the massacres of the jews in WW2, youd have us happilyu say people died, instead of calling it what it isw, mass murder. well, the same vien of thought is for this issue., murder is murder. areal wolf hunting is totally unfair, no matter what way you look at it, hence it is a fact. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

 * The Holocaust article is an excellent article. It covers the subject without getting emotionally heated. If someone asked me to write that article, I probably couldn't have done it. But if you look at the Jew page, the holocaust is a very small part of it, and the reference is very neutral. So, my point is that I don't believe the Wolf article is the best place for information on bad hunting practices. So, I would suggest either an external link, or if the topic is substantial enough, a separate article on conservation efforts dealing with wolves. - grubber 2005 July 6 20:56 (UTC)

a worthwhile suyggetion, but it is still true that they do it only becaue of a deep seeded cultural anachrinism of being afraid of wolves, and its sitll true that they chase  dpown  entire packs, until they are too exhauxzsted to move and then walk over and kill them excexution style, at point blank range. with thoseexact words, how is it POV?

thats exactly what happens.

Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

 * Well, it's controversial. How widespread is it? How many wolves die every year according to that method? Is it significant? (If it's not significant, it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia, if it is, then it does belong) Is it illegal? What types of efforts are being made to stop it? What types of hunting methods are more humane? There are a lot of sides to the sentences you wrote, and since all sides arent addressed, it's POV. So, if you really believe it belongs in the wolf page, talk about it about it in the Talk page first... get others to help. If there's enough interest, you can write an article on efforts to exterminate/conserve wolf populations. - grubber 2005 July 6 21:08 (UTC)

check the link i have above about wolf hunting to check for specific figures, but the alaskan populations are being " thinned out" far to regularly, in fact in alaska its possiblwe to slaughter a wolf, or several, from the air if your a civillian. the practise is widespread. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm familiar with it. I come from Wyoming and the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone was a huge issue -- and there's reasonable, honest people on both sides of the argument. All I ask is that you use the Talk pages to help put together a neutral discussion on the topic before you edit the article again. Controversial topics take caution and care and should be discussed before being committed to an article. If you were just updating the price of butter in 2005, there would be no need for the formality. - grubber 2005 July 6 21:20 (UTC)

the fact remains that if i were to spell out thje facts in cold, logical, emotionkless terms, it would still seem to be calling it creul. likly because it IS cruel. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

 * Listen, you've shown that you're capable of holding an intelligent conversation. I'm not contesting the merit of your arguments, just discussing ways that we can get your information incorporated without creating edit storms and without people getting upset. Discuss the stuff you want to add in the Talk pages and work with the group to put something nice together. - grubber 2005 July 6 21:32 (UTC)

Another Warning
You are in violation of the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) again at Wolf; please discuss your edits at the specified talk page Talk:Wolf prior to reverting again, or you will be blocked and brought to the attention of the arbitration committee for chronic offending of this rule (I believe you have been blocked three times at the present?).

"Chronic offenders [to the three-revert rule] may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis..."

We value your contributions, and encourage you to seek a more diplomatic way to share your point of view. Documentation is one way to avoid such issues, as focusing more on using NPOV wording, including absolute statements and emotionally charged wording. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

liar, if anyone "valued" anything i had to say they wouldnt delete it outright, which is what they are doing. Gabrielsimon 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

It is true that we value all points of view, that is what makes an open source movement work well - the dissident's fresh ideas often become the standard - as seen by features within various Linux flavors. Same on Wikipedia - this is what makes an open source project such as this so great. If people delete you outright, you should discuss with them the reasons why and then alter your edits accordingly, such as removing NPOV.

That said, I don't appreciate being called a liar, as I value my integrity. Name calling (No_personal_attacks) is not an appropriate Wikipedia behavior. You may want to familiarize yourself with Policies_and_guidelines, Wikiquette, and Civility. Please continue to contribute. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

peopple keep doing it to me, and i never see anyone bat an eye. i dont personally complain becasue i dont really feel as though i should, though i am getting really sick of people deleting every single thing i say, in more then one instance, someon folowed me accross articles,  destroying everything i tried to work on. i wish for this to stop. Gabrielsimon 7 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

If this is truly as consistent and universal as you say it is, you may want to look at what is making them do it. While I do not know your complete history or your reputation (nor do I want to), I have seen a history of emotionally-charged words, POV and use of use of "absolutes." You may want to tone those down - just a suggestion.

For example, your comment above may be true, however, words such as "never," "anyone," "every single thing i say," and "everything" would be considered "absolutes." While some editors may be doing this, not everyone is. (I hope you realize I'm using the post above as an example, not criticizing; as I think your statement is justified to some degree, and appropriate for a talk page, but wouldn't be for an article page). Let me know what I can do to help as an admin, as I hope for you to have a positive experience. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

3RR violation
I have blocked you for 24 hours due to a WP:3RR violation. This is not the first time, but I hope it will be the last time anybody has to block you for this. Do note, however, that the next time you are reported for a 3RR (and this is verfied), I will extend the block to 3 days. Deleting this won't help, as I will remember - this is merely so you can't say you weren't warned. --khaosworks July 7, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

more vanals... joy!
so it seems im g etting vadlazised more now...

i wonder why and i wonder who... id really like some rasons why, if yonder vandals are listening. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Playing nice
You really have to stop this provocative, antisocial and confrontational approach and figure out what you are doing and what you want out of this project. If you can't play nice with others and want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm afraid you may want to look elsewhere, because that attitude is incompatible with the goals we're trying to achieve here.

I've been watching your activities and your clashes with other people, although I have not entered the fray except to enforce Wikipolicy like the 3RR violations. It is obvious to me from the conflicts that you are having that many people have an issue with you. And if many people are having an issue with you - over the course of several incidents - you have to start considering that the problem may not be with them but with you instead. Now, you may be within your rights to remove stuff within your own talk pages (although this is debatable), but you should extend that courtesy to other people's talk pages as well. This sort of behaviour cannot continue, or else you will find yourself on the end of an RfC or even worse, an RfArb, in which case your fate is effectively sealed.

I'm not threatening you with that, in case you get that impression... merely a word to the wise. I am, however, going to suggest to those people who do have a problem with you that an RfC is an avenue they may wish to pursue. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:37 (UTC)

he was treating other people like crap, and hes been doingthis for a long time, so i tohught to show him what it felt like, so he might stop that.

as for other things, its a case by case  thing. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

 * Ever hear of two wrongs don't make a right? You cannot keep doing this. You are jeopardising your own ability to be an editor here. I'm trying to give you good advice here, but if you are not willing to consider it, then there's really nothing I can do to help you. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:44 (UTC)

 * i see your point, dont think me unreasonable. you are quite nice for speaking ofthis instead of taking rash action, for thati thank you.  i shall try to see if i can make myself better, in this place.

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

 * Just as a note, don't think I'm taking sides on this. I'm not saying DreamGuy, for example, is blameless, but he's not the first person you've come to blows with, and you've been cited for 3RR three times in the last couple of weeks and that's a hell of a track record. I'm glad that you're thinking about it, at least. Hopefully the situation will improve all around. You might also think about taking a little break from editing, just to let tempers cool, and then you can come back with more of a fresh start rather than having an overly tense atmosphere around you right now. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:55 (UTC)

 * one of the reaosns i kept getting 3rr is because of the way i had panned to add things,  i thought it wuld be good to add something, then come back and  add to it, and so on, but psomeone kept removing the incomplete  materials, and  i kept re adding, then wanting to add more... and so on and so on...  guessi  shuld finsih sonething, then just paste itin....

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Just in case you don't check my talk page
Okay Gabrielsimon, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I know you're not American. But I am. And I know what my country believes in and flies. And just because it's not on the news, doesn't mean the flags still aren't flying, and that people don't cry when they think of the military. The news doesn't always cover the truth, you know, regardless of what we hope. The vast majority of Americans are extremely patriotic and love their country, even if they disagree with who's in power (which is what the news covers) and the policies. It's the country they love, and saying the words "September 11" is enough to incite patriotism in the hearts of everyone. It's still going, and it's not short lived. That's like saying the happiness of the end of World War II was short lived, because the news stopped covering the celebrations.Stanselmdoc 8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism on George W. Bush. You've done a good wikipedia deed today. Friday 8 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

i intend to make it the first ( not sure if it is the first but for the sake of the phrasing...) of many more. please to restart an awuantancship if you like. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see this type of edit. Many more would be most excellent. BTW, on the Homosexuality topic.. there is an article for Same-sex marriage, so thing specifically related to marriage probably work best there. Friday 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

i simply thought it mighjt be worth mentioning in the homosexuality atrticle t hat canada has legalized  same gneder marriage. :-D Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

 * And, dude, start using a spell checker. The occasional typo is okay, but unless you can type entire sentences without obvious mistakes, no one's going to take you seriously. If you don't have a word processor like Microsoft Word, you can download TextPad. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Re:DreamGuy
Well, GabrielSimon, DreamGuy is once again the talk between us. Several users have gotten together to try to come to a consensus with him, and I have personally asked administrators what to do. Please help. Horatii 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, long time no see (30 April). I thought you were angry at me or something because you never responded to my messages. Take care. Horatii 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

check out the RFC page ,a and add your testimonial to where i asked for him to be connemnted on... also, no, i aint mad. i dont get mad, (not that theres a reason to be mad at you) Gabrielsimon 02:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What's an RFC page? No. I really didn't think you were mad but just a little teed off. I was reading your talk page and I think it is really funny how you said "I'm not American" to someone talking about the First Amendment lol.Horatii 02:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks! and its the request for comments page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_for_comment#Comment_about_individual_users

find him menitoned ( by me) under individual users, and feel free to add your two cents/ Gabrielsimon 02:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did. And I added some of his specific quotes to highlight his rudeness.Horatii 03:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

139.55.53.68
I saw you reverted vandalism by 139.55.53.68 at George W. Bush. I believe this is the same vandal I and several other users fought yesterday. I wanted to give you a word of advice: be carful of what you revert, yesterday he almost got me blocked for 3RR because he picked up on an existing edit war and tricked me into reverting edit war content believing it was vandalism. Just thought I should give you a heads up. -- Essjay ·  Talk 15:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! isnt it amazing how misdirected idiotic intellect seems to be? Gabrielsimon 15:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:DreamGuy Again
I have no idea what that administrator was talking about, so decided to post some more warnings on DreamGuy's site. I told him that several users are recommending bans. Take care. Horatii 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I do, and I did as User:Carnildo asked. See here for what I have done, and I think the preceding link is an example of a "diff". Cheers, and high hopes for the conflict, friends Horatii and Gabrielsimon, elvenscout742 15:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Take a look at his RfC now, I formatted it according to RfC guidelines so that admins don't just ignore our complaint. I moved all of your comments to the discussion page, we should rewrite them and enter them in "Evidence of disputed behavior" and "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" whichever is applicable. Please use differences such as this:  That particular one is where Dreamguy writes "VfD is a freaking joke" in the history comment. --AI 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2
I tried to read this RfC, but was put off by the formatting. I think it would be a good idea to use the regular format. --Canderson7 22:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, take Canderson's advice. The trouble of making such a page was what put me off making one myself earlier, actually, as well as the Wiki-guidelines to go through a series of steps and to act with civility, which is impossible with DreamGuy.

 * Anyway, I'm here to point out to you that when Carnildo asked for "diffs", I think he meant something like what I have added . Ooh, and there's another one to use as an example. I'm going to start adding to that page on a daily basis, with both updates and old news on DreamGuy's reprehensible behaviour, until it is actually and finally reprehended by someone in power.

 * elvenscout742 15:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * According to Solipsist we have to remove the Recommendations section. I moved it to the discussion page.

okay, i get it. Gabrielsimon 00:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the RFC. I have read all the complaints and the references you put up and I will be willing to go through them one by one with you (when I have time) if you'd like. My view of the whole dispute(s) is that no one is particularly blameless here. It started badly, both sides slung mud, and it has snowballed - if you'll pardon the mixing of metaphors. I have seen much worst edit wars, and based on ideological differences, than this one. This appears to be a personality conflict, and in any case none of this warrants a permanent ban on anybody. Censuring everyone would be a more equitable solution. If anything, everyone involved needs to take a chill pill and read Civility. --khaosworks 01:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd be all for that - I don't like having enemies or arguments - if it weren't for the obvious fact that DreamGuy is never going to change his ways. He is the only truly guilty party here - he will keep enforcing his narrow PoV and keep being ucivil to other users who happen to disagree with him unless something is done. I just want what's best for Wikipedia. I'd be willing to apologise to him for all the hassle I've supposedly been giving him if he'd do the same and stop enforcing that PoV of his. But he never will. elvenscout742 14:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

i am very civil asfar as i am aware, though i can not say the same forthe person i am nw  hoping gets banned for consistant rudeness. Gabrielsimon 01:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

it will be re created becasue it was going to be certified today, o impatient one. Gabrielsimon 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC got deleted (by User:Radiant! as per the normal procedure for uncertified RfCs. Please do not re-create it, at least on basis of the same complaint. jni 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR Warning

 * posted to both users

Please note WP:3RR. You are reminded of this in connection with Missing sun motif.

20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR reporting
Please report 3RR incidents to WP:AN/3RR. That will be dealt with faster, since I may not always be on-line all the time (though it might seem so!). --khaosworks 22:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Comments go on the talk page"
It says at the bottom of the page that: All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. The comment that you keep removing is related to an endorsement. --Canderson7 01:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

the comment was being moved, and i copied the relevent text, so lets just remove it, shall we? Gabrielsimon 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR block
You have been blocked for 24 hours as a result of a violation of the Three revert rule on the article Mythology. Please refrain from edit warring when you return. Thank you. Bratsche talk 5 pillars 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

in my defence
thats not fair, i was correcting my own spelling mistakes! Gabrielsimon 20:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

why must people pick on me? i would ap[preciate it if someone would unblock me for this unjustified block. look at the actual edits, its my bad spelling i was trying to correct, someones being to literal... and hey, since im blocked, how can i edit this page? Gabrielsimon 20:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

must be a glitch or something, but i do enjpoy being able to tell the world that this time i do not think i did anytrhing wrong... everyone whosseen my edits knows i m a horrible speller, and when i was donewith an edit, i noticed something i did wrong, so i edited to correct it, then i noticed i hit the wrong key, so i edited to fixthat, all of this was after a revert, a while back on an unrealted matter, so yes i did modify a page four times, but the last three were really one large attempt.... o im gonna be quiet now.....

Gabrielsimon 20:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

i really am startng to wish people would comesee my side of things... i really didnt think that ixing my own errors was against policey Gabrielsimon 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In the diffs posted, you were putting back in the same content that another user was removing. This is not fixing your own spelling mistakes, this is a revert war. Friday 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

no, if you READ the changes it is as i said. Gabrielsimon 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What I'm looking at is here :. The diffs seem pretty clear to me. Remember, even if you're sure you're right, the rules still exist. To avoid being banned for rule violations, maybe you should self-impose more stringent rules on yourself than the community requires. I personally find the one revert rule helpful. Friday 20:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

it would have stopped at two, but i noticed spelling mistakes of minbe, so i edited them, which isthe third, then i noticed i accidentally spelled sky father as sky gather, so the fourth edit was trying to fixthat, see? trying to not look to much a fool for typos, i wished to fix iut, i dont see that as blockable. Gabrielsimon 20:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel: The edits that you made were not spelling mistakes. They were removals of certain list items in the Mythology article. The following diffs were copied from Administrator's noticeboard, 3RR section:

Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 09:14, 10 July 2005
 * 1st revert: 22:58, 10 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 11:21, 11 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 11:30, 11 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 22:48, 11 July 2005

As you can see, these edits are not spelling changes. Judging from the block log, and the other messages left by other users on your talk page, you have violated 3RR five times within the last month. Clearly, you are aware of this rule, and the consequences. When you return from this block, please discontinue from these silly revert wars, and edit constructively. The next time, your block will be at least three days, and possibly longer. On a side note, the new blocking sytax lets you edit only your talk page, so communication between users and admins can occur. If you have any other questions, email me here. Regards, Bratsche talk  5 pillars 20:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

also if you check the DATE codes, one is in a differnt day, and three are on the 11th, so on THOSE grounds, this block is unfair. Gabrielsimon 20:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The 3RR rule covers edits in a 24 hours period, since this is an international project. Your first revert was 22:58, 10 July, and the fourth was 22:48, 11 July. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 21:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

you have to think from MY time zone, and thus its not fair to do otherwise. Gabrielsimon 21:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lucky duck
You should be flattered. Some of the world's best programmers hove dropped everything, just to make it possible for you to talk while suspended from this project. (Please fulfill our faith in you :-) Uncle Ed 20:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * World's best programmers? Surly they are good at what they do, but wiki-programming is a fairly simple type of programming.   ‡   Jarlaxle   20:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

i do appreciate it, but please do look at the date codes on the edits that hes citing, one of the four is o a different day, which makes it the three   on the eleventh and ( as it seems) one on the tenth,  which doesnt vilate the rules. Gabrielsimon 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * While I personally do not care too much for Gabrielsimon, it does seem like you are screwing him out of 24 hours over a mere 10 minutes. His last revert was only within the 24 hour span by 10 minutes. Seems overly strict. I understand Gabrielsimon has had many issues in the past (some of them with me), but to punish a guy over this... seems a little absurd. Are we soon going to be enforcing the 3RR down to the second? Not really sure what else to say. --Lord Voldemort 21:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I see where you're coming from. However, after several previous bans for 3RR, he really ought to be extra careful.  Also, GS, the rule covers a 24-hour period as has been explained above.  What time zone you're in makes no difference at all.  Yes, 24 hours is pretty arbitrary, but the line must be drawn somewhere.  Try the one revert rule.  It's not enforced, but it's not a bad idea either.  Friday 22:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

im ALREADY trying to be carefull, as it is. Gabrielsimon 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Besides, as ive said, from my clock, i did nothing wrong, if im supposed to look at some other TZ instead of mine for when 24 hours is over etc, no one ever told me  of it before, thus this is  still unfair. Gabrielsimon 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand the rule? It's about 24 hours of elapsed time. Time zones are completely irrelevant. Friday 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

my interpretation was within a 24 hour period, as in when the rol over gits, its all fair game again. thatswhatthewording says to me, and so thats how i acted. Gabrielsimon 22:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: it is also important to understand the spirit of the 3RR. The point of it is to avoid revert wars that are a waste of time and energy. They achieve nothing. The only way to resolve a conflict is to discuss it on the talk page, and if that fails, seek mediation. Waiting until 24 hours has elapsed and then reverting again does not resolve the problem: the other editor will just come back and change the article again.

From my review of the information provided above, the "three reverts" that you made were not related to typos, but to links to three articles that the other editor -- rightly or wrongly -- was deleting. Ground Zero 22:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

that particular other editor refuses discussion on anything with me, or anyone else who could proove him wrong. discussion with such .... stubborn, opinionated behaviour is, well proovejn  impossible. Gabrielsimon 22:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but then persisting in edit wars is not going to fix anything. I will look into Dreamguy's behavior, but he still didn't break 3RR.

 * About the concerns that your last revert was made 10 min short of the 24 hours of elapsed time, I did take that into account. However, you've been blocked many times for 3RR violations. I was still lenient: since you've had multiple violations, I could block you for several days. The 10 min contributed to my decision to block you for 24 hrs. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 22:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

from my time zone it was well within the next 24 hours. this is why i didnt see a problem. Gabrielsimon 22:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Gabrielsimon, my suggestion is to be more careful in your edits before hitting save, if spelling was an issue. Ed suggested using a text editor to you a number of days ago. I'd echo his suggestion. While this block may not seem fair, this type of behavior takes up a lot of time in general on the wiki. Given your history you have a lot of people watching and rooting for you (and some watching to see if your behavior will change), but you have to be strict on yourself because of that same history. Be more careful. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 23:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

ill do my best. Gabrielsimon 23:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing Sun myth
While we are still in the right, I suggest we request that the name of the original article be changed back and allow your new one (which, yes, is a violation of policy) to be deleted. Until then, I would ask that you follow my lead and stop undoing DreamGuy's changes to other pages. I would like to keep our little conflict with DreamGuy (and, yes, DreamGuy himself) away from those other articles if at all possible. elvenscout742 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

then please doso. itwould be nice to have some admins tell him to stick to what he knows, ( which evidently, is NOT mythology)  but i will follow as requested. Gabrielsimon 22:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You should understand what admins are here for. I found out by reading Administrators.  A couple key sentences:  "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.  Any user can behave as if they are an administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. ..it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users."

 * This means, among other things, that resolving disputes is everyone's responsibility, not just administrators. If you disagree with another editor, it's up to you to come to some kind of workable arrangement.  Yes, sometimes other people, including admins, become involved.  But requiring third party help should be the exception, not the rule.  Friday 23:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

intersting, but for the sake of this argument, sort of moot, becasue dreamguy refuses to have any conversations with me, ifi ask him ANYTHING , hell claim harrassment, and cry ( not literlaly,   butyou get the idea) hes not the sort who seems to be able to comprehend when hes wrong. (which is often) Gabrielsimon 23:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

also would someone put on the missing sun mytrh VFD page that i vote keep, but delete missing sun motif, becasue sim[ply, we cant have DreamGuy gettinghis way when  violating policey like he is. Gabrielsimon 22:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC DreamGuy-2
Hi Gabriel,

Just to let you know, that I think the RfC was prematurely deleted this afternoon. It looks like it was caused by a misunderstanding on a minor technicality over certifying. In anycase, we've got the page restored back to how it was earlier today.

Since you helped put the RfC together, I'm assuming that you are a principle in the matter, in which case could you move your certifying signature up one section, to be underneath Horatii's.

But please also note, that this an RfC on an individual editor's behaviour. As such issues about your related dispute on the Missing Sun article are a separate matter. -- Solipsist 22:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive2


text:
Talk:M2 (Sydney)

Merging from M2 Hills Motorway (Sydney)
Careful, the Hills Motorway is only one part of Metroad 2. Metroad 2 also includes:

Southeastern end of the Hills Motorway Northwestern end of the Hills Motorway
 * Sydney Harbour Bridge
 * Gore Hill Freeway (shared with Metroad 1)
 * Lane Cove Tunnel
 * M2 Hills Motorway (Between Pennant Hills Road and Old Windsor Road is shared with the M7)
 * Old Windsor Road
 * Windsor Road

--Kelvin 11:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hills Motorway
Reading this article it is structured such that it sounds as though the motorway is the only part of Metroad 2 Cartman02au 11:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Perhaps this page could be broken into the three sections of Metroad 2, those being the CBD to the Hills Motorway, The Hills Motorway and the final section of Old Windsor and Windsor Roads. As has been stated by others, this page seems to make the same mistake made by many that Metroad 2 IS the Hills Motorway.

Also, on a somewhat pedantic note, the Hills Motorway does not pass through Winston Hills; the border between Baulkham Hills and Winston Hills runs along Boundry Road to the M2's direct south. (admittedly, Parramatta council has made some noises about having the municipal border moved to the middle of the Hills Motorway.) (Mdgr 11:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Post-Alphanumeric Changes
Metroads are about to be abolished so we need to figure out what to do with these articles. Metroad 1 and 2 are particularly interesting as there are multiple motorway and non-motorway segments.

Possible options: I'm leaning to option 2 but I can see arguments for other options too. Thoughts? Ausmeerkat (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Rename Metroad 2 to M2/A2, Sydney - basically the same article renamed to match the new signs
 * 2) Rename Metroad 2 to M2, Sydney and make it a summary/disambiguation page to the Lane Cove Tunnel and M2 Hills Motorway pages. Also create a new page A2, Sydney which describes the remaining non-motorway section
 * 3) Same as above, but don't bother with the A2 article as it's not noteworthy
 * 4) Redirect Metroad 2 to M2 Hills Motorway and don't bother creating any new route overview articles.

 * Option 2 is the best, though it should be "(Sydney)" not split with a comma, per non-geographical naming conventions (if it was a mountain or suburb it would be a comma). The A2 article should be created at some point, as the roads definitely arent notable enough to be considered for their own articles IMHO. -- Nbound (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Option 2 is the best but there is another option:
 * Redirect Metroad 2 to M2 Hills Motorway and create A2 (Sydney) describing the non-motorway section. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts my following option is now preferred:
 * Rename Metroad 2 to M2/A2 (Sydney) as a summary page, and create A2 (Sydney) describing the non-motorway section. A summary page will be better than a disambguation page, and it can be talking about the history of Metroad 2, give an overview what it consists of and brief histories of M2 motorway and Lane Cove tunnel. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a new idea. Create Windsor Road (Sydney) and merge metroad 2 into this new page and M2 Hills Motorway. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Part of Metroad 2 includes "Old Windsor Road" where Windsor Road deviates to the east. -- Nbound (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True.... but the Windsor Road from Rouse Hill to Northmead is sort of unimportant. So perherps an article about both Windsor Roads? Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be done, the most appropriate name for that section is probably something like A2 (Sydney) as per the previous suggestions. I wonder if it is necessary to redirect all the former Metroads to cover their child articles via a disambig page, instead perhaps they should all redirect back to Metroad and the current component routes be listed and linked from there? A mini version of Evad's take on the WA road routes here: List_of_road_routes_in_Western_Australia -- Nbound (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All so troublesome..... I don't want to think about it actually. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At least once it is done, we dont have to do it for another 20 or 30 years :D -- Nbound (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved buidhe 20:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

– To maintain consistency for route numbers with M and A letters. Exception for Highway 1 (New South Wales) which will stay as it is. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * M2 (Sydney) → M2/A2 (Sydney)
 * A4/M4 (Sydney) → M4/A4 (Sydney)

 * Currently, M2/A2 and M4/A4 are the only route numbers (other than M1/A1) in Sydney with A and M letters. Both the articles were renamed from Metroad articles back in 2013. The last discussion for Metroad 2 (this article) was 7 years ago (previous talk section), and there was no clear consensus on the final name for this article. Eventually, it was renamed M2 (Sydney). However, the majority of this article talks about the former Metroad 2 which is now M2 and A2. As such, I think the article should be renamed to reflect the A2 section. As for A4/M4, I propose to rename it M4/A4 to be consistent with Template:Road infrastructure in Sydney. It also seem to align with the unwritten convention that M comes before A (e.g. as shown in Freeways in Australia). Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The M2 and M4 routes are almost always known as that, although the other titles such as M2/A2 do have some more limited usage. A better convention would be to leave M2 as it is and move M4 to to match it. The other titles should be redirects. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Andrewa Heraldmyon (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:M2 (Sydney)


text:
Talk:Brian Schweitzer

Needs more info
Who's saying Schweitzer is going to run for President in 2008, I have yet to hear a single shred of a rumor that would mandate mentioning of his potential candidacy. Personally I feel he would make a good Vice Presidential candidate to run along someone like Senator Evan Bayh, but thats my opinion... which is far from a legitimate rumor.
 * Also, a first term governor usually won't take a shot at the White House. I'm removing it. -Leo McGarry

Needs more info
Um, what are his policies? What are his positions on the war, health care, regaining stae controll of electricity, etc.? Sirota raves about him, but damnit we need more info! That's why i came here, sheesh!

BBC News
I don't know much about him, but I should mention that today (23 August), Brian Schweitzer was featured in a section of the BBC Ten O'Clock News, about the current oil crisis in the US, and his plans to convert coal to oil. --Dreaded Walrus 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vice Presidential Nomination?!?!
I live in Montana, and this is the first that I've heard of it. There is no citation in the article about any talk of Schweitzer receiving the Vice Presidential nod. If anyone has one, please note it. I will be removing the statement soon. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * There's no decisions on that as of now, however he is apparently one of the people being considered as B. Obama's VP 76.25.115.99 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
Is this article written with a neutral point of view? The edit made by GovSchweitzer (check the edit log) doesn't seem very neutral to me. Any comments?

Antivenin (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The section Controversy being removed by a number of users is a definite COI, IP Address 161.7.94.132 is registered to state government computer and user GovSchweitzer, as noted above, isn't very neutral. I will not take a strong hand beyond this because I am member of the opposition party here in Montana. snachodog (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * if it helps, I (a Canadian who didn't know who Brian Schweitzer was until this week), have re-added the Controversy section with a, perhaps more notable, reference to a New York Times article. Some of the edit war seems to be about how quoting a "self-promoting link to a minor blog" is unencyclopedic.  OK, well how about quoting the reference to a major American newspaper like the New York Times.  Thomas Dzubin (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks great. snachodog (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this NPOV issue up again. I don't even live in Montana or have any serious opinions about Schweitzer, but when I come across this article, there are sections that read as if they are written from someone campaigning against him. Prime example: At this very moment, there is a line in the governorship section that says "he would support regulating water on YOUR property. you can read about it here." or something along those lines. Not only is that poorly written, but things like that just look like subjective political garbage. Say it more eloquently if you must make a political observation about his opinions, and perhaps it would be good to put that into context as well. It's just sorta thrown in there. Rob Shepard (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just want to say, I totally agree. I DO live in Montana, and I'm quite the fan of Governor Schweitzer, so I'm far from objective, so I'm not the one to re-write the article. But it definitely needs work.  I'd encourage you to engage in the effort and I promise to do my part to help in any way I can. Dlabtot (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Regardless of whether you are pro or anti-Brian, the bottom line is that his press secretary was caught red-handed editing this article off of a state government computer. See article here.  Tacky, even if "correcting the record."  But also typical of the cult of personality and control-freak attitude of the administration, which has given him the nickname "Governor B.S." and is going to hurt his own party one of these days.  He has been compared to Huey Long in more than one blog, such as here. 4.227.172.89 (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of Brian Schweitzer is duly noted. Do you have any comments or suggestions to make that are relevant to improving this article? I suggest a review of WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not live in Montana, and had never heard of him before reading a quite neutral piece on another topic; since I did not know of him, I called up this to learn. I must say that it appears irreparably biased, to the point that the only solution is a virtually complete rewrite, removing ALL adjectives and commentary, either positive or negative, about either Mr. S or his political opponents, past or present, or their actions. It may even be necessary to remove any commentary which reveals his party affiliation. It is almost as though no one who has been involved even understands the meaning of NPOV. Since I am not qualified for such a project, and expect none of the people involved to heed my comment, I will only add that this is the most biased piece I have ever read in Wikipedia, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of any neutral reader, and constitutes a stain on the reputation of Wikipedia, and of anyone involved, in my view.71.14.134.53 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
I'm sorry about the 2 reversions title "controversy" I'm new at this. I do believe that this belongs in the article and the reason why is that this is a big issue in the state of Montana. This was reported in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/12montana.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin and on Fox News http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/montana-governor-apologizes-for-joke-about-tampering-with-06-ballots/, which now brings Montana in the the lime light of the nation. This was also brought up by the chief political news director for the AP that once thought that the Governors race would be a blow out and now that's in question http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/09/14/top/75st_080914_chuck.txt. Because there has been an edit war about this, I won't put it back until those who have been removing my edits have a chance to explain why they think this doesn't belong in the article.Help2008Montana (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I would vote to leave this, as it is a real news story and has other sources as listed by Help2008Montana. snachodog (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that the story doesn't belong. The issue is that, in the context of a four year governorship, this is not worth 2/3 of the content of the article. An appropriate reference would be one line (with sources) in the section about his job as governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.68.52 (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you regarding your facts. First if the story belongs then why did you remove it altogether, second the story didn't take 2/3's of the over view of the Governor. The article is very important because the Governor stated that he committed voter fraud through the Governors office which the voters of Montana gave him in 2005. This is a relevant story and there are many editorials calling for a investigation. http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Default/Skins/BDChronicle/Client.asp?Skin=BDChronicle&Daily=BDC&AW=1221629047906&AppName=1 This is one of the most important issues to our freedom in this country and if the Governor can turn a few dials to change the out come of an election then I think that people need to know. Without any other discussion on the issue in the next day then I will offer a shorter revised version of the article. Help2008Montana (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whenever anyone adds new information to a Wikipedia article, that article can be temporarily out-of-balance in terms of the apparent relative importance it gives to the different sections in the article. The way to solve this is to add more information to the other parts of the article, not to delete the information you don't like or think is unbalanced. If Wikipedia editors always deleted information that temporarily unbalances an article, the articles wouldn't have a chance to grow, it seems to me. I've looked at a few other articles on Wikipedia about governors, and they are much more comprehensive than Schweitzer's currently is. His article needs more information, not less.Help2008Montana (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads like a mere "puff piece" - anyone with the slightest discernment would dismiss the whole thing for purposes of forming an opinion of the subject's accomplishments, character, and particularly, deficiencies. Including SOME traceable account (NYT should do) of his gaffe regarding his election tampering cannot in any way be optional. Removing it is not only reprehensible from the standpoint of partisanship and slighting truth, but also deprives the article of a shred of credibility that it now utterly lacks, and desperately needs.Joe (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Election Excerpt
I disagree with Help2008 Montana: this disputed section should not go in this article. Its relevancy is debatable, and the section in question is too long, making the article disproportinately about an "alleged" election issue. If you include a specific act or issue of his as governor, you should also include every other equally relevant act and issue.

69.144.68.52 is right; this deserves a sentence and a reference. --Chrisknop (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. The size of the post could have been reduced with some highlights, but to remove it all together is not correct. The following link is to the Governors press spokesman that removed the "controversy" section - http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS01/809180307/1002/news01 - "I deleted a partial transcript (of the speech), with editorial comments" is this right. I know other politicians in the state that have had untrue or exaggerated comments written about them and they modified the comments. She had every right to balance the transcript - as well as the comments - but I didn't put any comments in only the Transcript and where it came from and links to other articles regarding the issue. It is obvious that this page is being controlled by Governor Schweitzer and his staff. These pages are for the public to add to comment on and modify both good and bad.Help2008Montana (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Help2008Montana, I suggest you review WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:SPA and WP:AGF -- Dlabtot (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #12
When clicking on the Footnote, showing a pdf-table of Montana electricity, I got the following rather dire warning from McAfee SiteAdvisor:

"psyrk.us may try to steal your information.

Why were you redirected to this page? When we visited this site, we found it may be designed to trick you into submitting your financial or personal information to online scammers. This is a serious security threat which could lead to identity theft, financial losses or other dissemination of personal information."

etc.

I am not proficient enough to judge this warning.

Also, the warning then called my attention to the fact that in the Footnote itself there is no title given, just "[1]".

I still hope it is all an innocent overreaction by McAfee.

AugoKnoke (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems unbalanced treatment
Was this article written by the politician's staffers? Our readers deserve a balanced and NPOV account. Tony  (talk)  05:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think you can improve the article, give it a try. Dlabtot (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible 2016
- is this sort of stuff worth mentioning? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brian Schweitzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219073548/http://www.csg.org:80/about/leadership.aspx to http://www.csg.org/about/leadership.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brian Schweitzer


text:
Talk:Temporary government

From WP:RfD:

 * 1941 independence --> June independence
 * More redirects spotted by Lysy of a generic name pointing to a specific article Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
 * keep Undergorund government might be changed into diambig if there are articles about more such governments reffered to as "Underground government" in wikipedia; if there are not then redirect might be kept until there will be. As for other redirects, the reason for adding them was that June independence does not has an official name to call it and in various places is reffered to in various ways, such as 1941 independence, June revolt, Temporary government and such.DeirYassin 4 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
 * Most of the above phrases do not have the specific meaning you assume, in English usage. I doubt if we really need an article named temporary government but if we do, I'd rather redirect it to provisional government then, which provides the disambiguation list already. --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

title: Talk:Temporary government


text:
Old Pop in an Oak

"Old Pop in an Oak" is a song recorded by Swedish band Rednex, released in 1994 as the second single from their debut album, Sex & Violins (1995). It reached number-one in many countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. In the UK, it peaked at number 12.

Chart performance
Like its predecessor, "Old Pop in an Oak" was very successful on the charts in Europe, remaining one of the group's biggest hits to date. It peaked at number-one in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Additionally, the single entered the top 10 also in Belgium (2), Germany (2), Iceland (6), the Netherlands (6), Scotland (8) and Switzerland (2), as well as on the Eurochart Hot 100, where it reached number two. In the United Kingdom, "Old Pop in an Oak" soared to number 12 in its first week at the UK Singles Chart, on March 19, 1995. In France, it was a top 50 hit. Outside Europe, the single peaked at number seven in New Zealand, number 17 on the RPM Dance/Urban chart and number 53 on the RPM Top Singles chart in Canada, and number 70 in Australia. It earned a gold record in Switzerland and a platinum record in Austria, Germany and Norway.

Critical reception
British newspaper Lennox Herald noted that "Old Pop in an Oak" is a "similar sounding song" to their previous single, "Cotton Eye Joe". A reviewer from Manila Standard described it as "techno-pop fun". Pan-European magazine Music & Media viewed it as a "C&W/dance mixture". Music Week constated that "Rednex regurgitate Cotton Eye Joe – give or take the odd twang – and set out to prove that successfully following up a novelty number one isn't impossible." James Hamilton from the magazine's RM Dance Update declared it as a "speak of the devil, another thumbs in braces, boot stompin', high steppin' moonshine swiggin' gingham swirling Swedish disco hoedown much too much like their last one". Also Chuck Campbell from Scripps Howard News Service deemed the song as a "very similar re-take" on the band's first hit.

Track listing

 * CD maxi
 * 1) "Old Pop in an Oak" (Original Radio Edit) – 3:30
 * 2) "Old Pop in an Oak" (Doug's Klub Mix) – 5:25
 * 3) "Old Pop in an Oak" (Original Extended Mix) – 5:38
 * 4) "Old Pop in an Oak" (Doug's Phantom Dub Mix) – 3:50
 * 5) "Old Pop in an Oak" (Original Instrumental) – 3:20

title: Old Pop in an Oak


text: User talk:219.142.40.82

title: User talk:219.142.40.82


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrius

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Tyrius
Apparent hoax. Ambi 06:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax/fanfiction. Note it was written by User:Tyrius ! Morwen - Talk 11:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanityfiction, or something. Friday 14:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- an attempt to write science fiction, I think.--Bhadani 16:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I failed to understand the article.--Bhadani 16:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)(Note: Delete vote added above.--Bhadani 16:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC))

 * Delete This article seems to be a summary of a non-notable story that the author wrote. And it wasn't even a good story. --jonasaurus 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. Oliver Keenan 21:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN Fanfiction. siafu 23:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the author with a query but the user is yet to respond, it seems Tyrius is actuall a planet or solar system or something in the Star Wars (expanded) universe, so I imagine it is the authors fiction, which I doubt has been published, but we'll see if/when the author responds. Of course, if it hasn't been published we can't verify it ... Seeaxid 03:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * According to this page at Star Wars Wiki, there's a Tyrius system, but we can delete this without a source.-LtNOWIS 06:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrius


text:
User talk:Mbuehler

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ( Redwolf24 06:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC) ) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ( Redwolf24 ) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24

P.S. I like messages :-P

title: User talk:Mbuehler


text: User talk:RUL3R

title: User talk:RUL3R


text:
Deed of change of name

A deed of change of name is a legal document used in the United Kingdom, Ireland and some other countries with legal systems based on English common law, to record an intended change of name by a person or family. It is one use of a deed poll.

Some organisations, such as government departments issuing passports and driving licences, may not recognise a name change without a deed poll. However, an official document is not a legal requirement for a valid name change in common law.

United Kingdom
In England and Wales, such a deed may be registered in the Central Office of the High Court. Deeds so registered are advertised in the London Gazette. A deed of name change on behalf of a minor must be approved by the Senior Master on behalf of the Master of the Rolls who will take into account the child's best interests. A deed poll can also be used to change a child's name, as long as everyone with parental responsibility for the child consents to it and the child does not object to it.

Registration of deeds is regulated by the Enrolment of Deeds (Change of Name) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/604) (as amended). Compared to some other European countries, for example Germany, a name change in the UK is easy and virtually unrestricted regarding choice.

Registration of a deed of change of name is not a legal requirement in the United Kingdom. A standard legal document, with stock wording, filled in by the person making the deed poll, and signed in presence of a witness, carries sufficient legal authority to be recognised. The witness need not be a solicitor, but can be anyone over the age of 18 independent of the person changing their name.

The procedure, requirements and law surrounding the issue in Northern Ireland are similar to those in England and Wales.

In England, Northern Ireland and Wales, a deed of change of name will not change the name on a birth certificate. For instance, when applying for a passport, both the certificate and the deed would need to be presented as documents of identity. In Northern Ireland, for children between the ages of two and eighteen years, only one change of forenames and one change of surname may be recorded. In Scotland, it is also possible to record a change of name on the original birth register entry at the General Register Office. However, only one change of forename and three changes of surname are permitted.

This restriction does not apply to transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, as a new entry in the Gender Recognition Register bearing one's new name and acquired gender is established by the General Register Office, and all subsequent birth certificates are issued from that register.

Republic of Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, a deed poll of change of name (Athrú Ainm de réir Gníomhais Aonpháirtí) is obtainable from the Central Office of the Four Courts, Dublin at a cost of €30. Like in the UK, there are very few restrictions on name changes. One is that foreign nationals must also obtain a change of name licence from the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. One of Ireland's most noted name changers was the politician Seán Loftus, who repeatedly added middle names referring to his political views so that they would appear on election ballot papers.

Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, a deed poll of change of name needs to be signed in the presence of a Hong Kong solicitor and submitted to one of the Registration of Persons Offices together with the relevant forms for a name change to be approved. There are very few restrictions on name changes, including that the new name cannot exceed six Chinese characters or 60 English characters. Like in the United Kingdom, a deed poll used to change a child's name needs to be signed by everyone with parental responsibility for the child.

History
In re Parrott, Cox v Parrott [1946] Ch 183, Mr Justice Vaisey stated that he did not believe that a deed poll could be used to change a person's Christian name if given in a baptismal ceremony – that could be done only by an act of Parliament. Deeds that change a person's first name can be registered by the applicant in the Enrolment Books of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, which is located within the Royal Courts of Justice on Strand, London, and they are usually endorsed "Notwithstanding the decision of Mr Justice Vaisey in re Parrott, Cox v Parrott, the applicant wishes the enrolment to proceed".

title: Deed of change of name


text:
Adolfo Díaz

Adolfo Díaz Recinos (15 July 1875 in Alajuela, Costa Rica – 29 January 1964 in San José, Costa Rica) served as the President of Nicaragua between 9 May 1911 and 1 January 1917 and again between 14 November 1926 and 1 January 1929. Born in Costa Rica to Nicaraguan parents in 1875, he worked as a secretary for the La Luz y Los Angeles Mining Company, an American company chartered in Delaware that owned the large gold mines around Siuna in eastern Nicaragua. In this capacity, he helped channel funds to the revolt against Liberal President José Santos Zelaya, who had incurred the anger of the United States by negotiating with Germany and Japan to resurrect the proposed Nicaragua Canal. Díaz became Vice President of Nicaragua in 1910. After he became president in 1911, Díaz was forced to rely on U.S. Marines to put down a Liberal revolt, which resulted in a contingent of Marines remaining in Nicaragua for over a decade. In return, in 1914, he signed the Bryan–Chamorro Treaty, which granted the United States exclusive rights to build an inter-oceanic canal across Nicaragua.

After his term as president ended, Díaz briefly lived in the United States. However, he returned to the presidency in 1926, after a coup by General Emiliano Chamorro (following the withdrawal of the Marines) failed to win U.S. support. During his second term as president, another Liberal revolt occurred. The Liberal forces were on the verge of seizing Managua when the U.S. forced the warring parties to accept a power-sharing agreement, the Espino Negro accord. One Liberal commander, Augusto Sandino, rejected the agreement and waged a guerrilla war against the U.S. Marines, who remained in the country to prop up Díaz's government and enforce the Espino Negro accord. In 1928, after elections supervised by the Marines, Díaz was replaced as president by former Liberal General José Maria Moncada. Afterwards, he acquired control of several of Nicaragua's gold mines, which had been destroyed during raids by Sandino's forces. He unsuccessfully tried to restore mining operations for the La Luz Company, until they sold their holdings to the Nevada-based Tonopah Mining Company.

In 1936, after Anastasio Somoza García seized power, Díaz took up permanent residency in the United States. He lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, primarily in New York City but also in Miami and New Orleans, before moving to Costa Rica, where he died in 1964.

title: Adolfo Díaz


text:
Sebastián Uriza

Sebastián Uriza Vega (1861 – after 1927) was a Nicaraguan politician and senator from Granada who was the President of Nicaragua from 30 October to 11 November 1926. Emiliano Chamorro appointed Uriza as his replacement, but Uriza's presidency was not recognized by any other continental governments.

Uriza was the president of the upper chamber of National Congress of Nicaragua in 1916, 1918–1922 and 1926–1927.

title: Sebastián Uriza


text:
José María Moncada

José María Moncada Tapia (8 December 1870 – 23 February 1945) was the President of Nicaragua from 1 January 1929 to 1 January 1933.

Political career
Born to a wealthy family of Spanish and Austrian descent, Moncada rose to fame as one of the principal Conservative generals responsible for the overthrow of the Liberal dictator José Santos Zelaya in 1910. He had begun his career in Nicaraguan politics as a journalist for a Conservative newspaper published in Granada. During the Zelaya dictatorship, Moncada published a pro-government newspaper, but by 1906 he had fallen out with the dictator and had fled to Honduras. There he served as undersecretary of the interior until the Conservative revolt against Zelaya began. After Zelaya's ouster, Moncada served as secretary of the interior in the Conservative government from 1910 to 1911. Moncada, however, fell out with the Conservatives and switched his allegiance to the Liberal Party. Moncada was a member of the Liberal Party. In 1910 José Santos Zelaya from the Liberal Party stepped down from government. In 1925 his continuing opposition to Conservative control of the Nicaraguan government forced him to flee to Costa Rica, where he continued to build support for a return of the Liberals to power.

After President Adolfo Díaz was re-elected in 1926, a coup by General Emiliano Chamorro (following the withdrawal of the Marines) failed to win U.S. support, Liberal forces rebelled in an attempt to overthrow Díaz's government. Moncada was one of the leaders, together with Juan Bautista Sacasa and Augusto César Sandino. The United States provided military support for the Díaz government and the Liberal forces were on the verge of seizing Managua when the U.S. forced the warring parties to accept a power-sharing agreement, the Espino Negro accord. Moncada and Sacasa made peace, but Sandino refused and continued the fight and waged a guerrilla war against the U.S. Marines. But in 1928, after elections supervised by the Marines, Díaz was replaced as president by Moncada.

Background
For many years, conflict brewed between the Liberal and Conservative Parties in Nicaragua. The Liberal Party, which "advocated manhood suffrage, separation of Church and State, and the advancement of the material wealth of the country", held power between 1893 and 1909 under the control of President José Santos Zelaya. In 1909, the Conservative Party launched a US-supported revolution, with most Americans "aid[ing] the revolutionary party because of Zelaya’s oppressive acts" and a "[desire] to see the concessions cancelled so that they could get in on the lands and make ‘denouncements’ for mining and agricultural purposes’". Further American intervention led to the deployment of US troops in Nicaragua from 1909-1933, with a brief exception during 1925 that set the stage for the Nicaraguan Civil War.

Actions before and after the Nicaraguan Constitutional War (1926-1927)
The U.S. Marines withdrew their forces from Nicaragua in 1925, prompting General Emiliano Chamorro to rise "in rebellion against a new regime". He successfully installed himself as president, but the United States refused to recognize his regime. Although Chamorro offered to resign in favor of a designated successor, the U.S. State Department "insisted upon the selection of its favorite, Adolfo Díaz, as provisional president". Former President Adolfo Díaz assumed the presidency after Chamorro's resignation, spurring several Liberal leaders, including José María Moncada to rebel. In response, the United States sent troops in 1926 to force an armistice and eventual resolution to the conflict. Emiliano Chamorro and José María Moncada agreed to the armistice, but "the peace talks failed because of the refusal of the Liberals to accept a compromise government".

Incensed by the collaboration between the Conservative Party's leadership and the US government, Moncada refused to recognize the new Díaz government. On 1 December 1926, he initiated a new Liberal offensive at Puerto Cabezas. The U.S. responded by "creating six neutral zones along the east coast, [expelling] the Liberal government from Puerto Cabezas, and dumping Liberal munitions into the harbor". Augusto Sandino, an ally of the Liberal Party, proposed the creation of a revolutionary force that would continue the struggle against the U.S.-Conservative coalition. He was unable to impress José María Moncada, who was "reluctant to turn over precious arms and munitions to [an] unknown guerrilla". Despite rejection by the Liberal leadership, "the rank and file among the Liberals were more sympathetic" and Sandino would go on to establish a revolutionary force after the compromise between the Liberal and Conservative Parties.

By 1928, US Secretary of State Henry Stimson had become involved in the conflict. The American public was growing weary of the presence of US Marines in Nicaragua and the US government was looking for ways to quickly withdraw its forces. Given the Liberal Party's inability to achieve electoral victories under the previous system, Stimson approached Moncada "with a plan designed to permit Liberal success at the polls". Moncada accepted, telling Stimson that "while there will probably be resistance by small irreconcilable groups and scattered bandits, [he believed] that there will be no organized resistance to our action". Eleven of the twelve lieutenants under Moncada accepted Stimson's plan. Only Augusto Sandino and his forces refused. They retreated "into Nicaragua’s rugged northwest" and "attacked a much smaller group of marines and constabulary at Ocotal".

Despite this complication, the plan to hold free elections was implemented and the "US Marines supervised the registration and voting procedures". Nicaraguans were provided the opportunity to vote and, after the Liberal Party's electoral victory, "José María Moncada was installed as Nicaragua’s president".

Moncada's victory surprised many Nicaraguans since his opponent, Adolfo Díaz of the Conservative Party, was a close ally of the US who "owed [it] his entire political career". His victory, however, had been assured "by the settlement imposed by President Coolidge’s special emissary Henry Stimson to end the brief civil war between Conservatives and Liberals in 1927". The Liberal Party, which had been denied power through electoral victories, had planned an uprising, "hoping to drag the United States into the fray". Stimson's negotiations recognized that the Liberals would not accept anything less than success and, in order to reach a quick result that would allow the US to leave Nicaragua, assisted his victory. Sandino's violent response to the election of Moncada, however, ensured that US Marines would remain in the country for the foreseeable future since the "1927 Stimson ultimatum had disbanded Nicaragua’s partisan armed forces". To create a force that could maintain stability in Nicaragua, the United States created the Nicaraguan National Guard and "provided it with arms and training, while at the same time continuing the fight against Sandino’s rebels".

Moncada asked the US for assistance in stabilizing the country throughout his presidency. The 1929 Stock Market Crash increased President Herbert Hoover's “desire to remove the remaining US troops from Nicaragua”. Despite President Hoover's reluctance to intervene in Nicaragua, Moncada succeeded in requesting that “the United States supervise Nicaragua’s 1930 non-presidential elections” and securing enough money from President Hoover in 1932 to “chair half the election boards”, thus ensuring that Juan Sacasa, another Liberal politician, would win the 1932 election.

Moncada was the president of the upper chamber of National Congress of Nicaragua 1942–1943.

Descendants
General, then President Moncada's first marriage was to Ms. Margarita Carranza, their children being Elsa, Aquiles, Elio, Hernaldo, Lesbia and Alba Moncada Carranza. One the latter's granddaughters, Maria Elena Amador Valerio, married Guillermo F. Pérez-Argüello, the oldest great-grandson of Doña Angélica Balladares de Argüello (1872-1973), who was Pres. Moncada's close friend, comrade and one of his most assiduous political allies in the 1920s and 30s and until his death. It was during his triumphant entrance to Granada, in June 1927,  that the then General Moncada demanded she be accorded the appellation of  "Liberal Heroine"  as a result of what he termed  "her colossal struggles during the Nicaraguan Constitutional War". From an historical perspective, and as this was reported in various newspapers, most notably in the front page of the Diario Moderno's 14 June 1927 edition, it was thus as of that date,   which continued up to her own death at the age of 101,    that she, a descendant of the Western Hemisphere's branch of the House of Plantagenet and its most celebrated Nicaraguan female member, became known as the "1st Lady of Liberalism".

From his second marriage to Ms. Josefa Reyes Gadea, his children were Leda Maria, Omar and the late Óscar Moncada Reyes, who served as President of the National Assembly of Nicaragua from 1999 until 2001.

Selected works

 * Moncada, J. M., & Gahan, A. C. (1912). The social world.
 * Moncada, J. M. (1913). Justice!: An appeal to the Executive Power and the Senate of the United States. New York: [s.n.].
 * Moncada, J. M., & Gahan, A. C. (1911). Imperialism and the Monroe doctrine (their influence in Central America).
 * Moncada, J. M., & Gahan, A. C. (1911). Social and political influence of the United States in Central America. New York: s.n

title: José María Moncada


text:
Juan Bautista Sacasa

Juan Bautista Sacasa (21 December 1874 in León, Nicaragua – 17 April 1946 in Los Angeles, California) was the President of Nicaragua from 1 January 1933 to 9 June 1936. He was the eldest son of Roberto Sacasa and Ángela Sacasa Cuadra, the former's cousin twice removed. He was a relative of Benjamín Lacayo Sacasa.

Born in the town of León, Sacasa studied in the United States from 1889 to 1901, earning an M.D. from Columbia University. He served as a professor and dean of faculty at the National University in León, and was a supporter of the Liberal regime of José Santos Zelaya. In 1924, Sacasa became a member of a political coalition headed by moderate Conservative Carlos Solórzano. Shortly afterwards, the detachment of U.S. Marines which had remained in Nicaragua for thirteen years withdrew, believing that the political situation was stable. In October 1925, Solórzano's government was overthrown by former President General Emiliano Chamorro, who failed to gain U.S. recognition and subsequently resigned in favor of Adolfo Díaz. In the meantime, Sacasa fled to Mexico.

Following an uprising by Liberal soldiers in Puerto Cabezas, Sacasa returned to Nicaragua in 1926. Asserting his claim as constitutional president, he established a government in Puerto Cabezas. Supplied by Mexico with arms and munitions, the Liberal rebels, under the command of General José María Moncada, nearly succeeded in capturing Managua. However, the U.S. forced the two warring parties to enter into negotiations, resulting in the Pact of Espino Negro, which required that both sides would disarm and Díaz would be allowed to finish his term. Sacasa reluctantly agreed to accept the agreement and withdraw his claim to the presidency, but refused to sign the pact and left the country; leaving Moncada to sign the pact on Sacasa's behalf. Over the next six years, a formerly obscure Liberal general named Augusto Sandino would lead a guerilla war against the Marines, who had remained in the country to enforce the agreement.

In 1932, Sacasa was elected president. He took office on January 1, 1933, the day before the scheduled departure of the Marines. At the insistence of the U.S. Ambassador, he named Anastasio Somoza García, who was married to one of his nieces, as director of the Guardia Nacional (National Guard). The following month, Sacasa met with Sandino, during which Sandino pledged his loyalty to the new government in exchange for amnesty and land for his followers. Sandino continued to call for the disbanding of the National Guard and, in February 1934, he was assassinated under orders from Somoza. Despite Sacasa's disapproval, he proved unable to contain the growing power of Somoza and the National Guard. His popularity continued to diminish as Nicaragua's fragile economy suffered the collapse of coffee prices due to the Great Depression and allegations of widespread fraud surfaced in the 1934 congressional elections. Meanwhile, Somoza's power continued to grow, and he cultivated ties with former presidents Moncada and Chamorro. Early in 1936, Somoza used the National Guard to purge local officials loyal to the president and replace them with his associates. On June 9, he forced Sacasa to resign, appointing a puppet president before assuming the presidency himself the following year. Afterwards, Sacasa fled into exile in the U.S., living in Los Angeles until his death ten years later.

He married María Argüello Manning, a cousin of Leonardo Argüello, 66th President of Nicaragua; together, they had the following children:
 * Maruca Sacasa Argüello
 * Carlos Sacasa Arguello
 * Roberto Sacasa Arguello
 * Gloria Sacasa Arguello

Juan Bautista Sacaza was the first cousin of Bertha Lacayo Sacaza. Bertha Lacayo Sacasa was married to Lisimaco Lacayo Solorzano and they had only two children Chester Lacayo Lacayo and Will Lacayo Lacayo. Will Lacayo Lacayo had four children Danilo Lacayo, Bertha Lacayo, Ligia Lacayo and Tania Lacayo.

title: Juan Bautista Sacasa


text:
Carlos Alberto Brenes

Carlos Alberto Brenes Jarquín (2 December 1884 in Masaya – 2 January 1942 in Managua) was the President of Nicaragua from 9 June 1936 to 1 January 1937. He was a member of the Nationalist Liberal Party. Brenes was the president of the lower chamber of National Congress of Nicaragua in 1933. He was installed as president by national guard commander Anastasio Somoza Garcia following a military coup on 9 June 1936, and remained in office until Somoza became president on 1 January 1937.

title: Carlos Alberto Brenes