User talk:David Shankbone
Talk Archive 1
Talk Archive 2
Talk Archive 3
My Wikipedia links:
Wikipedia Official Policies
Hi, I added the Jewfro addition, and I was wondering why you took it off. Do tell.
- Because "The Jewfro has even become popular among white non-Jews. This causes them to be misidentified as Jewish, regardless of their cultural background" is an unsourced, random addition that I don't believe is true. A "Jewfro" or "Hair nest" is not so identified with Jews that non-Jews are mistaken based on this sole criterion. If I'm wrong, cite a credible source. --DavidShankBone 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi-
I'm in a rush, it looks like I made a mistake on Al Franken page. All I meant was uncited and unnecessary was this sentence:
"The decision was not unexpected as Franken privately told prominent Minnesota Democrats about his candidacy."
Other edits were just meant to improve flow. If I screwed something up, sorry. I'll look into it later tonight!
-Pete 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, on review I don't think I did anything wrong, but I think your reversion - that undid other edits besides the sentence in question - was hasty. I don't see the point in back-and-forth reversions, so for now I'm leaving your sentence in. I hope you'll respond to my comment on the Talk:Al Franken page as to why you feel so strongly that the sentence adds to the article. -Pete 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
House of Leaves
I too watch the [[House of Leaves]] article and have appreciated your efforts in the past. However, as per your latest edit (Reverting the removal of the bit about Thief: Deadly Shadows), I have reverted it as per discussion on the talk page. The source being referenced no longer works and the blogger who said it was the inspiration was not a game designer (Once again, all this is on the Talk page). However, if you disagree with this, after viewing the discussion, feel free to re-re-revert, noting your reasons why on the Talk page. Cheers. --Scorpios 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi nice edits
Hi there I like the organization you did of Philip Johnson's page photos. If you have any photos of his NYC buildings, please put 'em up! Best Smokychimp
reply
Hi, Absolutely no need to apologize, I have been so busy, and it was such a minor fray that worked out well enough in the end . . . I wish more of my debates here turned out so agreeably to both parties. I did not follow the NAMBLA thing too closely, after having said what I thought needed to be said. I do not even know how things turned out. It seems like such a simple thing, they were closer to the mainstream once, they are quite out of the mainstream now, but it is hard to argue that the fringe, even the lunatic fringe as I really consider them to be, is not part of the whole. Is there a consensus forming? Haiduc 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey -- why'd you remove The Ice Storm from the Ashbery biblio? Nightspore 23:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)nightspore
My reason for removing the 'oath of office' thing, is because at the moment Nixon resigned Ford became President. The line 'takes the oath' gives the erroneous impression (to a unfamilliar reader), that the US Presidency was vacant from the moment the resignation to effect 'til Ford was sworn in. Saying Ford took the oath, isn't needed, eitherway. GoodDay 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- How about 'takes oath, upon become 38th President' instead of 'and becomes the 38th President'? GoodDay 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ford became President at the precise moment Nixon's resignation took effect (Noon EST- August 9th, 1974). If what you say is correct? Then every 4 years the USA has a Presidential vacancy from 15-30 minutes (example- Bush didn't take his 2005 oath of office, at precisely Noon EST, but still he continued as President). Believe me, this debate is nearly as old as the American Republic itself. See following articles - oath of office taken after assumption of office John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, Chester A. Arthur, Calvin Coolidge. GoodDay 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a better example: Nixon's resignation speech of August 8th - 'Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency, effective at noon tommorow. Vice President Ford, will be sworn in as President, in this office, at that hour. Nixon's speech clearly states, Ford's presidency begins, when his (Nixon) resignation takes effect. GoodDay 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Make that excerpts from his 'resignation' speech. GoodDay 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, according to that, the oath of office begins the Presidential term (and makes the 'person' President). Sooo, if a President-elect is in a coma (thus can't take the oath), the Presidency remains vacant? Or the Vice President-elect would have to become President (take the pres.oath). Yet this scenerio would contradict the 20th Amendment (wich states a VP-elect, can only become President, if the Pres-elect dies before the Inauguration). I suspect, scholars have been debating these possibilities for years. PS- I'm not disputing you, rather I'm pointing out the contradictions in the American Constitution. GoodDay 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- See my answer at my own page, I accidently posted there. Don't know how to transfer it to your page. GoodDay 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Suggest we move this discussion to talk:1974, as the Nixon/Ford situation brought about the topic. Plus it would be easier for us to read each others posts, rather then going back-and-forth. See my answer there. GoodDay 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- See my answer at my own page, I accidently posted there. Don't know how to transfer it to your page. GoodDay 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, according to that, the oath of office begins the Presidential term (and makes the 'person' President). Sooo, if a President-elect is in a coma (thus can't take the oath), the Presidency remains vacant? Or the Vice President-elect would have to become President (take the pres.oath). Yet this scenerio would contradict the 20th Amendment (wich states a VP-elect, can only become President, if the Pres-elect dies before the Inauguration). I suspect, scholars have been debating these possibilities for years. PS- I'm not disputing you, rather I'm pointing out the contradictions in the American Constitution. GoodDay 00:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Make that excerpts from his 'resignation' speech. GoodDay 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a better example: Nixon's resignation speech of August 8th - 'Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency, effective at noon tommorow. Vice President Ford, will be sworn in as President, in this office, at that hour. Nixon's speech clearly states, Ford's presidency begins, when his (Nixon) resignation takes effect. GoodDay 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ford became President at the precise moment Nixon's resignation took effect (Noon EST- August 9th, 1974). If what you say is correct? Then every 4 years the USA has a Presidential vacancy from 15-30 minutes (example- Bush didn't take his 2005 oath of office, at precisely Noon EST, but still he continued as President). Believe me, this debate is nearly as old as the American Republic itself. See following articles - oath of office taken after assumption of office John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, Chester A. Arthur, Calvin Coolidge. GoodDay 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is a lot of fussing (over those few minutes). I'm glad, you've debated with me, about the Nixon-Ford transition entry at 1974. It shows we both want accuracy. GoodDay 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about my angry sounding revert, I didn't mean it to come out like that. Perhaps we should wait for Alex to respond himself on the talk page. He's edited the article himself twice already it seems. But yes, apologies. I really don't have much of a clue about Mr Kapranos myself so should just leave it to those that do. Jellypuzzle | Talk 14:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)