User talk:Cecropia/Archive 1

Nice work on Belt Parkway. -- Decumanus 22:11, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Cecropia 00:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you put a hyphen in the VN Bridge name. I've seen it that way on some web sites, but the official name, at least as the MTA gives it in their official site [1] is without one (I'm a Staten Islander, so I see it written a lot, and it seems weird with a hyphen :) ). Anyway, fantastic work on all the pages you've been doing lately. Wikipedia definitely needed it. -- Decumanus 08:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. In a way the hyphen would make sense, since it is a bridge across the Narrows named for Giovanni da Verrazano, not a bridge across the fictitious body of water "the Verrazano Narrows" which some people assume (although I think the term is gaining coinage, retroactively from the name of the bridge). I know there was a huge controversy over the naming of the bridge at first. I'm gathering some facts about it to eventually include the article, since it actually was a large part of the restoration of the (at that time largely forgotten) explorer Verrazano (who is really spelled Verrazzano with two z's, from what I've heard, but that's another story. :) ).-- Decumanus

Good golly, even the Encyclopedia Brittanica gets it wrong! There's a page to list such things in Wikipedia. If only I knew where... :) -- Decumanus 09:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the hyphen in the V-N Bridge, I relied on the MTA's Financial Disclosures, Appendix A (The related entities) at http://www.mta.info/mta/investor/pdf/2003app-a.pdf. Cecropia 13:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cecropia, thanks for your layout improvements in the GWB entry. Could you please mark such editing as minor changes in the future in order to help people spare time by skipping them when trying to see what has changed? Thanks.

Hi, saw your article on Bronx Kill and wanted to ask if you know if there's a Normanskill still in the Bronx? - Hephæstos|§ 16:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't a clue. You might query Kevin Walsh of forgotten-ny.com (erpietri@earthlink.net). He knows a lot of arcana like that, and might be interested if he doesn't know. Cecropia 16:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great entry on Kill (body of water). It never occurred to me to create such an entry, but Wikipedia definitely needed it, since it has all the other geographic terms. -- Decumanus 21:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Outerbridge Crossing- Thanks your comment. I like the way you phrased that part about the name. It's one of the devilishly fun things about life on Staten Island. -- Decumanus 23:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: The North River. Thanks. Yes that was annoying, having it mashed together. I hate undisambiguated rivers. It's my own little crusade. I suppose North River should perhaps have been a disambig page, with a pointer to North River (Hudson) or something like that, but I guess my New York-centeredness shone through in this case :). -- Decumanus 18:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Asymmetric warfare

I like what your doing here. The page is so much more readable and enthralling, its hard to compare it to what you had when you started :) Sam Spade 08:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oops on Kerry

Good catch on Kerry. I moved stuff around in the sentence and neglected to change the date. Bkonrad 16:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kerry

Hi, when trying to check the difference of your last edit on John Kerry, no differences showed up--the URL is here. How come? Cheers, Meelar 19:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I somehow screwed it up--edits are there now. (Thx for the heads-up) Cecropia

Clinton as Kerry veep

Just a small point. I think that technically Bill Clinton could serve as VP. I'm pretty sure that the amendment only restricts presidents from more than two consecutive terms in office. Even so, it is extremely unlikely that he would agree to be VP. Bkonrad | Talk 19:02, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back--it limits them to two terms. I should have checked first. Bkonrad | Talk

Actually, if you get real technical, Clinton is not ineligible for VP, or at least it's not directly in the constitution. He can't be elected president again, but he's not ineligible for the office of president. This from a NY Times Op-Ed by a law professor--I'd post it here, but I fear copyright. You might want to move Clinton to a "disputed constitutionality" section or something. Yours, Meelar 04:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This has been argued back and forth, including a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times by a professor (who has too much free time?). The intent of the Constitutional amendment limiting the President's term was clearly intended to do just that, especially since it provides for a longer term for the special circumstances of a President finishing out another's term, in which the President can only be elected one time if he has finished out more than two years of a predecessor's term (so limiting that person to no more than 10 years total as President.) To argue that the amendment only covers elections invites one to facetiously suggest that it wouldn't be OK for Clinton to run for President again, but it would be OK if he regained the Presidency in a coup d'etat.

You may remember that Governor George Wallace of Alabama effectively evaded term limits by having his wife Lurleen (sp?) succeed him and he acted fairly openly as shadow governor. In the case of the Presidency, you could imagine a popular president then running as Vice President to a dummy President, who would resign in his behalf. Clearly this is not what the Congress intended—the origin of the amendment was anger at Roosevelt for breaking the tradition intentionally set by George Washington that a President of a democracy should serve only two terms and then stand aside instead of attempting to rule as elected royalty.

On a legal basis, I would contend that when the 12th amendment says that someone ineligible to serve as president he cannot be vice president, that the fact that someone is barred from running for president assumes that the person is thus ineligible for president.

On a practical basis, it certainly would not help Kerry to nominate a man for Veep whose presence on the ticket would certainly spark a Constitutional Crisis and another visit to the Supreme Court. And it would be too much grist for the Republican mill to have the man who defined "the meaning of is" reinterpreting the Constiution in such a way.

And I was going to contend that the Twelfth Amendment was about the Electoral College...

1. No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

- Woodrow 20:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I now think otherwise. The last sentence in the Twelfth Amendment is "But no person Constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States. - Calmypal 16:10, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Iraq War

Cecropia, do you resign our discussion of the legality of the war in Iraq? I think that study http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ is really comprehensive and convinving. My conclusion: GBW should resign, Blair, Aznar, Howard, and Miller should be sent to the ICC. But what to do with the government of the Solomon Islands that took part in the coalition of the willing without even knowing about it? [2] [3] Get-back-world-respect 02:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well no, I'm not resigning the discussion, but I've let my other interests (including some writing on non-contentious subjects) slide, so I'm "taking a rest." I will look at the link at world press review and share any thoughts. As to the war's "legality," I have no doubt it was legal (speaking from a knowledgeable background) but time will tell whether it was wise. In fact, it is one of the few wars in modern times that was legally structured according to the enduring laws of land warfare: that is, it was justified by a breached armistice, authorized by the Congress of the main belligerent, and commenced by a valid conditional declaration of war. Cecropia 02:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As the study explains in detail, your argumentation is completely flawed. Of course it is no authorization if the Congress of some country decides to go for war. Only the United Nations Security Council can authorize a war, which it clearly did not. An exception would have been if there had been an imminent threat, but the Security Council came to the conclusion that there was none, weapons inspections should have continued. Time has already told that the wars were not wise, just look at the ongoing terrorism, anarchy and unwillingness to deal with it in Afghanistan, the cost of the wars >13.000 civilians, many hundreds of allied soldiers and in dollars it was many times higher than the usual US development aid to all countries combined (>100 bn. vs. 6.9 bn according to the CIA factbook). Opinion polls show a significant number of Iraquis think the country was humiliated and attacks on the allied forces are justified. Multiply the percentages with Muslims in the world and you have a rough guess of how many people feel more attracted by radical lunatics now. This was a war in favour of terror. Iraquis also say they feel better now, something that could easily have been reached had weapons inspections gone on and the embargo been lifted. Get-back-world-respect 14:34, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Only the United Nations Security Council can authorize a war

Well, if that's what you are predicating your argument on, it explains why we could never agree. If only the UN can authorize war, then the world must have been at peace for the last 60 years, as it has only authorized two wars out of hundreds. Even if I were to stipulate that you are right, all law is dependent on the even application of that law and the ability to enforce it. The UN can not even enforce its resolutions against a petty dictator but you expect it to restrain major powers from what they deem their legitimate national interest? The day that a blue helmet showed up at the White House, or Downing Street, or the Kremlin, to arrest leaders for trial is the day that the UN or the ICC cease functioning, not the other way around. Cecropia 16:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you too ignorant to know that the UN authorized actions in Afghanistan and helps in numerous cases by negotiating or peace keeping? Indeed the UN cannot enforce its resolutions if some country illegally goes for a war in spite of ongoing weapons inspections. Your argumentation is entirely flawed: "If only the UN can authorize war, then the world must have been at peace for the last 60 years." Nonsense, just because wars were not authorized does not mean they were not fought. The war to free Kuwait was exactly fought because Iraq had illegally invaded its neighbour country. Just try to think before writing. The ICC has no right to arrest leaders unless the countries fail to ensure correct treatment of crimes at home. By explaining they feared US citizens to face trials at the ICC Bush implicitly admits he does not treat crimes according to international standard. Which we all know after Guantanamo and the Iraq war based on lies. Get-back-world-respect 23:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Block anons on Bush?

I'm not sure if we could do that (I would think so), but neither am I sure it would be a great idea. All this is frustrating, I'll admit, but one of the virtues of the wiki is its openness, and not all of the anon edits are bad. I think the best solution to this is more trusted users with more power. In that vein, I've nominated you for admin. Meelar 03:53, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to have spread lately to the Kerry and 9/11 pages. Maybe we could restrict edits of anons a few days at a time, to see if the kids go somewhere else. ;-) Cecropia 04:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't tell me, put in on Wikipedia:Rfa. ;) Meelar 04:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did. Thanks! Cecropia 04:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's a similar proposal in the poll that was discussed a few days ago on Talk:George W. Bush--I'm not sure if you caught it. I would encourage you to put up said poll on the Wikipedia:Village Pump (or somewhere else it's supposed to go) so we can get some closure on this issue (a la Bush v. Gore. ;) Yours, Meelar 04:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there a formal polling facility on Wikipedia, or do you just say "this is a poll; what do you think"? Cecropia 04:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you just propose it on the pump. Meelar 04:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for you support over on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship; it's greatly appreciated, I assure you. And congratulations too for getting your vote in under the line only 30 mins before the end of voting! Cheers, –Hajor 23:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and nice words. I needed a little ego boost. :) Makes it worthwhile being in this community! Cecropia 01:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem. As a volunteers our only payment is in compliments, so I try to give them when they're due. Your comments are intelligent, and you've been a good example of the spirit of collegiality this site is intended to run on. I will probably start devoting my wikitime to other articles soon, but it's been a pleasure working with you. If you ever want help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. Isomorphic 02:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, the Kerry change struck me the wrong way, plus it added an evil Unicode hyphen. :-) Stan 06:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Radack paragraph

What are the "weasel words" you are trying to avoid? Cecropia 22:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did you look at the Weasel Words style guide? I'm trying to avoid "Critics say" and attribute negative comments to specific detractors. In Radack's case, the only thing I could think to say is "Radack says..." I couldn't find any champions of her cause (besides partisan players). I wouldn't have given it a second thought except that the moment I added a "Critics say" to Kerry's article, it was immediately "cleaned up." Mdchachi 14:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting someone like you complains about Weasel terms. Get-back-world-respect 23:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since you do not seem to know what whistleblowing means I explained it for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_6#Jesselyn_Radack Get-back-world-respect 20:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)