Please feel free to post your comments and I will reply as soon as I can. Thank you. Allreet ( talk) 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
What an absolutely tremendous article. I only wish I'd stumbled across it sooner. Thank you for all your hard work on it. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Callsigns issued by the F.C.C. sometimes DO have suffixes: -FM, -TV, -LP; in fact, the callsigns with -LP suffixes continue to display them on the list of community radio stations page! Please see 47CFR2.302. I saw nothing on the talk page about deleting said suffixes. The suffixes indicated in the callsign field should be exactly what is issued by the F.C.C., & not an incomplete callsign!
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I'm creating a new article on a blind street musician who was one of country music's earliest recorded artists, and I inadvertently set up the new page through the draft process: Draft:Ernest Thompson (musician). I'm an experienced editor but am not familiar with this process. Since the artist is unquestionably notable and the article meets other WP standards (citations, structure, writing style, etc.), I see no reason to wait for the draft to be reviewed. So my question is:
What is the procedure for publishing a draft without waiting for review?
Thank you. Allreet ( talk) 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your edit on the Blues page. I did not see your discussion at first. Sorry about that. NW1223( Howl at me/ My hunts) 03:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for putting this up instead of going back and forth again. Maybe we can hold off on doing that at the RfC except in replies to others, which I hope it gets. I'm surprised more editors didn't enter the discussion, as the page would seem to be one of the top pages in U.S. history. Looked at your articles when I thanked you for the Phil Ochs film page, really nice articles (you've given Bob Dylan, who has just organized a large tour, nice presentations of Wikipedia). Ochs was a large influence on me for lots of years and signed my draft card (which I soon burned) on the first anniversary of the '68 convention. Met him again just after that event as he was going into the Haymarket Bar at the Hilton, could have joined him for a drink (duh, just realized that I could have and had pineapple juice or something, what a maroon) but was only 19 (duh). The Founders were the Yippies of their time, and built something so great it took us to the Moon and freed people to create and act on their own thoughts and ideals. Nice to meet you in the midst of their memory. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! thx for your message concerning the Dahmer RFC. I'm a total newb, sry to ask: can you rearrange everything so it's ok? this would be a great help... many thx in advance. H8eternal ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
'anks for poin'ing ou' United Colonies, a fine and impor. page no memory of seeing before (edi'ed awhile ago wi'hou' realizing i's impor'ance). Did some good edi's already, maybe you can have a look and add a 'hing or 2. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me know what to we do next? -- Likhasik ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Your Library of Congress link to the booklet not working for me, may be broken or my browser is from the Ice Age. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Saw your masterpiece, List of train songs. When I was a kid I had a record of a train starting up, moving, going faster and faster and eventually pulling into a station. A two-sided record. I'd play it over and over. Long afterwards I met the father of a girl I was seeing, and he had a great miniature train layout and train collections. During his showing me his things I mentioned the record, and darn if he was the person who created it. A small world moment. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
If you have any questions about the process in the DRN discussion, address them to the moderator, User:Casualdejekyll. I am a participating editor and have no special authority. Either ask your questions at DRN, or ask the moderator on their talk page, or don't ask the questions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Just thought I would let you know that people in Yorkshire, UK where I was born and brought up say "All reet" rather than "All right". -- Bduke ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 22:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Vermont#CNBC rating of states. HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nat Schachner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I've started a topic at Talk:Bob_Dylan_World_Tour_1966#Tour_dates, and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
You've been edit warring at Constitution of the United States § Preamble, making the same changes [6] [7] [8] after I opposed them. Please stop this disruptive behavior and discuss on the talk page instead. — Freoh 23:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I don't appreciate the comments you made about me at WP:NPOV/N § How should the Preamble to the United States Constitution be neutrally presented?. — Freoh 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, and I'll probably watch the linked youtube lecture. First I've heard of the book, and am wondering if James Bevel is mentioned in the chapter on the Civil Rights Movement, talk about key omissions from most history books and discussions. Could you let me know when you receive your copy? Thanks. A belated Happy New Year, and what's interesting to me, as it seems much longer ago, is that our initial discussion of Galloway and the founding documents (Werther etc.) occurred just a year ago. Yes, seems longer, but a lot was said and much accomplished since. Been a nice and continuing ride, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I've warned you before, and you're continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. — Freoh 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended...Which is not to say personal attacks are ever justified, but it does mean at some point in a drawn out dispute we can be more aggressive in our responses. Allreet ( talk) 22:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith. My goal is clarifying factual information, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, not
advocating for a position. — Freoh 20:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
bad faith, but are more the product of subjective, unconscious tendencies. I won't cite what I meant specifically but instead suggest you read through the bulleted points to see what might apply. I'll do so as well, because I'm no doubt guilty of a few myself. Allreet ( talk) Allreet ( talk) 20:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I notice that you
accused me of
wikilawyering. According to that page, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term
. Though I do sometimes cite Wikipedia
policies, I always try to do so in a way that respects the
underlying principles. Most of our recent arguing has been my attempt to present a more
neutral point of view. Some of
your recent comments suggest to me that you do not respect Wikipedia's
third pillar. —
Freoh 20:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The types of wiki-lawyering vary from mild commonplace even inadvertent behavior to quite severe deliberate misuses of the Wikipiedia policies...IMO, that applies to our discussions, though Civil POV Pushing is more apropos in terms of specifics. BTW, I don't find your last two accusations of my violating AGF (WP's fourth pillar) particularly civil, that is, consistent with AGF. Allreet ( talk) 20:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
powerful white men). Allreet ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Allreet. Just wanted to mention that after your last edits on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 page (just before User:Kbdank71 edited) you apparently forgot to add your signature. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your determination and logical discussion points at the founder's homes category. I thought it should have been closed as Keep before the second relisting. It's usually the second relisting which devolves into scuffles and new see-if-this-sticks arguments and you continued to thoughtfully reply. Nice work. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Read the article you were working on with interest. It presents the mystery of button, button, who's got the button? Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey, you asked a question at Talk:Constitution of the United States § Discussion that I don't think is super relevant to the RfC proposal, and the walls of text there have already gotten out of hand, so I'll answer you here. This is the source that I'm using:
The American War of Independence had been fought in the name of "the people," and all the framers felt that the "whole body of the people" had to be consulted at some point to make their revolution legitimate—but the entire purpose of the Constitution was to ensure that this form of consultation was extremely limited, lest the "horrors of democracy" ensue. At the time, the common assumption among educated people was that there were three elementary principles of government that were held to exist, in different measure, in all known human societies: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The framers agreed with ancient political theorists who held that the Roman Republic represented the most perfect balance between them. Republican Rome had two consuls (elected by the Senate) who filled the monarchical function, a permanent patrician class of senators, and, finally, popular assemblies with limited powers of their own. These assemblies selected from among aristocratic candidates for magistracies, and also chose two tribunes, who represented the interest of the plebeian class; tribunes could not vote or even enter the Senate (they sat just outside the doorway) but they were granted veto power over senatorial decisions.
The American Constitution was designed to achieve a similar balance. The monarchical function was to be filled by a president elected by the Senate; the Senate was meant to represent the aristocratic interests of wealth, and Congress was to represent the democratic element. Its purview was largely to be confined to raising and spending money, since the Revolution had, after all, been fought on the principle of "no taxation without representation." Popular assemblies were eliminated altogether. The American colonies, of course, lacked any hereditary aristocracy. But by electing a temporary monarch, and temporary representatives, the framers argued they could instead create what they sometimes explicitly called a kind of "natural aristocracy," drawn from the educated and propertied classes who had the same sober concern for the public welfare that they felt characterized the Roman senate of Cicero and Cincinnatus.
It is worthwhile, I think, to dwell on this point for a moment. When the framers spoke of an "aristocracy" they were not using the term metaphorically. They were well aware that they were creating a new political form that fused together democratic and aristocratic elements. In all previous European history, elections had been considered—as Aristotle had originally insisted—the quintessentially aristocratic mode of selecting public ocials. In elections, the populace chooses between a small number of usually professional politicians who claim to be wiser and more educated than everyone else, and chooses the one they think the best of all. (This is what "aristocracy" literally means: "rule of the best.") Elections were ways that mercenary armies chose their commanders, or nobles vied for the support of future retainers. The democratic approach—employed widely in the ancient world, but also in Renaissance cities like Florence—was lottery, or, as it was sometimes called, "sortition." Essentially, the procedure was to take the names of anyone in the community willing to hold public office, and then, after screening them for basic competence, choose their names at random. This ensured all competent and interested parties had an equal chance of holding public office. It also minimalized factionalism, since there was no point making promises to win over key constituencies if one was to be chosen by lot. (Elections, by contract, fostered factionalism, for obvious reasons.) It’s striking that while in the generations immediately before the French and American revolutions there was a lively debate among Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau on the relative merits of election and lottery, those creating the new revolutionary constitutions in the 1770s and 1780s did not consider using lotteries at all. The only use they found for lottery was in the jury system, and this was allowed to stand largely because it was already there, a tradition inherited from English common law. And even the jury system was compulsory, not voluntary; juries were (and still are) regularly informed that their role is not to consider the justice of the law, but only to judge the facts of evidence.
— Graeber, David (2013). "The Mob Begin to Think and to Reason: The Covert History of Democracy". The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York. ISBN 978-0-8129-9356-1. OCLC 769425385.{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link)
I think that there are aspects of this argument on which reliable sources probably disagree, which is why I'm not arguing that it be stated this explicitly in wikivoice. — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel like you're
bludgeoning at
Talk:Constitution of the United States. I've explained several times now that
facts precede opinions on Wikipedia, and you're
continuing to post
walls of text arguing for the exclusion of facts (the low number of people who voted in favor of ratification) because they cast doubt on your opinions (the document's authority as resting with "We the People"
). Could you please stop? I find this behavior
disruptive. —
Freoh 02:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the re-nomination with Cmguy of the James Madison article in which you've shown some interest. It would be nice to see your support/oppose comments possibly if time allows. ErnestKrause ( talk) 00:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and wanted to both thank you for your considerable research and comments at the U.S. Constitution talk page and to point out that, if you have minutes saved within your day (do you really need to spend time eating or brushing your teeth when you could be editing?) please have a look at All men are created equal, especially its slavery section as well as the criticism section (where Howard Zinn again plays the favored role). Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Awarded to Allreet for his extensive contributions, improvements and defense of the Constitution of the United States article. – Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Allreet ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Allreet, please stop the edit warring on Bibliography of the United States Constitution. Any contested major deletion needs to be discussed, first, and a consensus established. Simply reverting a second time without a two way discussion is provoking an edit war. Please do the fair thing and discuss matters, as I've done on the Talk page, which you have not responded to thus far.. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Allreet, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Edward-Woodrow, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bibliography of slavery in the United States, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of slavery in the United States.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Edward-Woodrow}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Bagumba, BarrelProof, Blueboar, Dicklyon, Gawaon, Gwillhickers, HTGS, InfiniteNexus, Khajidha, Popcornfud, Randy Kryn, and Tony1: Please see the new subsection (Time to Move On) I've added at the end of the Founding Fathers of the United States capitalization discussion on the WP:MOSCAPS Talk page. I'm looking for consensus on wrapping up things. Any other editors who would like to join in are welcome to review the comments and add their input. Allreet ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Allreet and Gwillhickers. There are editors eyeing this navbox for deletion or splitting it up, although it hasn't been nominated as yet (the focus is now on another navbox which is up for deletion). To me this is one of the most interesting and full maps to the founding on the web, and is a complete guide to Wikipedia's articles on the subject. Please keep track of it and surrounding events if you can locate them, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Allreet and Gwillhickers. The nomination to split the navbox discussed above is now in progress at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 3#Template:Historical American Documents in case you still have an interest. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please feel free to post your comments and I will reply as soon as I can. Thank you. Allreet ( talk) 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
What an absolutely tremendous article. I only wish I'd stumbled across it sooner. Thank you for all your hard work on it. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Callsigns issued by the F.C.C. sometimes DO have suffixes: -FM, -TV, -LP; in fact, the callsigns with -LP suffixes continue to display them on the list of community radio stations page! Please see 47CFR2.302. I saw nothing on the talk page about deleting said suffixes. The suffixes indicated in the callsign field should be exactly what is issued by the F.C.C., & not an incomplete callsign!
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I'm creating a new article on a blind street musician who was one of country music's earliest recorded artists, and I inadvertently set up the new page through the draft process: Draft:Ernest Thompson (musician). I'm an experienced editor but am not familiar with this process. Since the artist is unquestionably notable and the article meets other WP standards (citations, structure, writing style, etc.), I see no reason to wait for the draft to be reviewed. So my question is:
What is the procedure for publishing a draft without waiting for review?
Thank you. Allreet ( talk) 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I reverted your edit on the Blues page. I did not see your discussion at first. Sorry about that. NW1223( Howl at me/ My hunts) 03:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for putting this up instead of going back and forth again. Maybe we can hold off on doing that at the RfC except in replies to others, which I hope it gets. I'm surprised more editors didn't enter the discussion, as the page would seem to be one of the top pages in U.S. history. Looked at your articles when I thanked you for the Phil Ochs film page, really nice articles (you've given Bob Dylan, who has just organized a large tour, nice presentations of Wikipedia). Ochs was a large influence on me for lots of years and signed my draft card (which I soon burned) on the first anniversary of the '68 convention. Met him again just after that event as he was going into the Haymarket Bar at the Hilton, could have joined him for a drink (duh, just realized that I could have and had pineapple juice or something, what a maroon) but was only 19 (duh). The Founders were the Yippies of their time, and built something so great it took us to the Moon and freed people to create and act on their own thoughts and ideals. Nice to meet you in the midst of their memory. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! thx for your message concerning the Dahmer RFC. I'm a total newb, sry to ask: can you rearrange everything so it's ok? this would be a great help... many thx in advance. H8eternal ( talk) 08:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
'anks for poin'ing ou' United Colonies, a fine and impor. page no memory of seeing before (edi'ed awhile ago wi'hou' realizing i's impor'ance). Did some good edi's already, maybe you can have a look and add a 'hing or 2. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me know what to we do next? -- Likhasik ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Your Library of Congress link to the booklet not working for me, may be broken or my browser is from the Ice Age. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Saw your masterpiece, List of train songs. When I was a kid I had a record of a train starting up, moving, going faster and faster and eventually pulling into a station. A two-sided record. I'd play it over and over. Long afterwards I met the father of a girl I was seeing, and he had a great miniature train layout and train collections. During his showing me his things I mentioned the record, and darn if he was the person who created it. A small world moment. Randy Kryn ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
If you have any questions about the process in the DRN discussion, address them to the moderator, User:Casualdejekyll. I am a participating editor and have no special authority. Either ask your questions at DRN, or ask the moderator on their talk page, or don't ask the questions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Just thought I would let you know that people in Yorkshire, UK where I was born and brought up say "All reet" rather than "All right". -- Bduke ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 22:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Vermont#CNBC rating of states. HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nat Schachner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I've started a topic at Talk:Bob_Dylan_World_Tour_1966#Tour_dates, and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
You've been edit warring at Constitution of the United States § Preamble, making the same changes [6] [7] [8] after I opposed them. Please stop this disruptive behavior and discuss on the talk page instead. — Freoh 23:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I don't appreciate the comments you made about me at WP:NPOV/N § How should the Preamble to the United States Constitution be neutrally presented?. — Freoh 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, and I'll probably watch the linked youtube lecture. First I've heard of the book, and am wondering if James Bevel is mentioned in the chapter on the Civil Rights Movement, talk about key omissions from most history books and discussions. Could you let me know when you receive your copy? Thanks. A belated Happy New Year, and what's interesting to me, as it seems much longer ago, is that our initial discussion of Galloway and the founding documents (Werther etc.) occurred just a year ago. Yes, seems longer, but a lot was said and much accomplished since. Been a nice and continuing ride, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I've warned you before, and you're continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. — Freoh 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The requirement to assume good faith is not an excuse for uncooperative behavior. There is a limit to how long good faith can be extended...Which is not to say personal attacks are ever justified, but it does mean at some point in a drawn out dispute we can be more aggressive in our responses. Allreet ( talk) 22:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith. My goal is clarifying factual information, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, not
advocating for a position. — Freoh 20:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
bad faith, but are more the product of subjective, unconscious tendencies. I won't cite what I meant specifically but instead suggest you read through the bulleted points to see what might apply. I'll do so as well, because I'm no doubt guilty of a few myself. Allreet ( talk) Allreet ( talk) 20:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I notice that you
accused me of
wikilawyering. According to that page, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term
. Though I do sometimes cite Wikipedia
policies, I always try to do so in a way that respects the
underlying principles. Most of our recent arguing has been my attempt to present a more
neutral point of view. Some of
your recent comments suggest to me that you do not respect Wikipedia's
third pillar. —
Freoh 20:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The types of wiki-lawyering vary from mild commonplace even inadvertent behavior to quite severe deliberate misuses of the Wikipiedia policies...IMO, that applies to our discussions, though Civil POV Pushing is more apropos in terms of specifics. BTW, I don't find your last two accusations of my violating AGF (WP's fourth pillar) particularly civil, that is, consistent with AGF. Allreet ( talk) 20:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
powerful white men). Allreet ( talk) 21:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Allreet. Just wanted to mention that after your last edits on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 page (just before User:Kbdank71 edited) you apparently forgot to add your signature. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your determination and logical discussion points at the founder's homes category. I thought it should have been closed as Keep before the second relisting. It's usually the second relisting which devolves into scuffles and new see-if-this-sticks arguments and you continued to thoughtfully reply. Nice work. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Read the article you were working on with interest. It presents the mystery of button, button, who's got the button? Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey, you asked a question at Talk:Constitution of the United States § Discussion that I don't think is super relevant to the RfC proposal, and the walls of text there have already gotten out of hand, so I'll answer you here. This is the source that I'm using:
The American War of Independence had been fought in the name of "the people," and all the framers felt that the "whole body of the people" had to be consulted at some point to make their revolution legitimate—but the entire purpose of the Constitution was to ensure that this form of consultation was extremely limited, lest the "horrors of democracy" ensue. At the time, the common assumption among educated people was that there were three elementary principles of government that were held to exist, in different measure, in all known human societies: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The framers agreed with ancient political theorists who held that the Roman Republic represented the most perfect balance between them. Republican Rome had two consuls (elected by the Senate) who filled the monarchical function, a permanent patrician class of senators, and, finally, popular assemblies with limited powers of their own. These assemblies selected from among aristocratic candidates for magistracies, and also chose two tribunes, who represented the interest of the plebeian class; tribunes could not vote or even enter the Senate (they sat just outside the doorway) but they were granted veto power over senatorial decisions.
The American Constitution was designed to achieve a similar balance. The monarchical function was to be filled by a president elected by the Senate; the Senate was meant to represent the aristocratic interests of wealth, and Congress was to represent the democratic element. Its purview was largely to be confined to raising and spending money, since the Revolution had, after all, been fought on the principle of "no taxation without representation." Popular assemblies were eliminated altogether. The American colonies, of course, lacked any hereditary aristocracy. But by electing a temporary monarch, and temporary representatives, the framers argued they could instead create what they sometimes explicitly called a kind of "natural aristocracy," drawn from the educated and propertied classes who had the same sober concern for the public welfare that they felt characterized the Roman senate of Cicero and Cincinnatus.
It is worthwhile, I think, to dwell on this point for a moment. When the framers spoke of an "aristocracy" they were not using the term metaphorically. They were well aware that they were creating a new political form that fused together democratic and aristocratic elements. In all previous European history, elections had been considered—as Aristotle had originally insisted—the quintessentially aristocratic mode of selecting public ocials. In elections, the populace chooses between a small number of usually professional politicians who claim to be wiser and more educated than everyone else, and chooses the one they think the best of all. (This is what "aristocracy" literally means: "rule of the best.") Elections were ways that mercenary armies chose their commanders, or nobles vied for the support of future retainers. The democratic approach—employed widely in the ancient world, but also in Renaissance cities like Florence—was lottery, or, as it was sometimes called, "sortition." Essentially, the procedure was to take the names of anyone in the community willing to hold public office, and then, after screening them for basic competence, choose their names at random. This ensured all competent and interested parties had an equal chance of holding public office. It also minimalized factionalism, since there was no point making promises to win over key constituencies if one was to be chosen by lot. (Elections, by contract, fostered factionalism, for obvious reasons.) It’s striking that while in the generations immediately before the French and American revolutions there was a lively debate among Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau on the relative merits of election and lottery, those creating the new revolutionary constitutions in the 1770s and 1780s did not consider using lotteries at all. The only use they found for lottery was in the jury system, and this was allowed to stand largely because it was already there, a tradition inherited from English common law. And even the jury system was compulsory, not voluntary; juries were (and still are) regularly informed that their role is not to consider the justice of the law, but only to judge the facts of evidence.
— Graeber, David (2013). "The Mob Begin to Think and to Reason: The Covert History of Democracy". The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York. ISBN 978-0-8129-9356-1. OCLC 769425385.{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link)
I think that there are aspects of this argument on which reliable sources probably disagree, which is why I'm not arguing that it be stated this explicitly in wikivoice. — Freoh 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel like you're
bludgeoning at
Talk:Constitution of the United States. I've explained several times now that
facts precede opinions on Wikipedia, and you're
continuing to post
walls of text arguing for the exclusion of facts (the low number of people who voted in favor of ratification) because they cast doubt on your opinions (the document's authority as resting with "We the People"
). Could you please stop? I find this behavior
disruptive. —
Freoh 02:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the re-nomination with Cmguy of the James Madison article in which you've shown some interest. It would be nice to see your support/oppose comments possibly if time allows. ErnestKrause ( talk) 00:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and wanted to both thank you for your considerable research and comments at the U.S. Constitution talk page and to point out that, if you have minutes saved within your day (do you really need to spend time eating or brushing your teeth when you could be editing?) please have a look at All men are created equal, especially its slavery section as well as the criticism section (where Howard Zinn again plays the favored role). Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Awarded to Allreet for his extensive contributions, improvements and defense of the Constitution of the United States article. – Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
-- Gwillhickers ( talk) 03:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Allreet ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Allreet, please stop the edit warring on Bibliography of the United States Constitution. Any contested major deletion needs to be discussed, first, and a consensus established. Simply reverting a second time without a two way discussion is provoking an edit war. Please do the fair thing and discuss matters, as I've done on the Talk page, which you have not responded to thus far.. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Allreet, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Edward-Woodrow, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Bibliography of slavery in the United States, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of slavery in the United States.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Edward-Woodrow}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Bagumba, BarrelProof, Blueboar, Dicklyon, Gawaon, Gwillhickers, HTGS, InfiniteNexus, Khajidha, Popcornfud, Randy Kryn, and Tony1: Please see the new subsection (Time to Move On) I've added at the end of the Founding Fathers of the United States capitalization discussion on the WP:MOSCAPS Talk page. I'm looking for consensus on wrapping up things. Any other editors who would like to join in are welcome to review the comments and add their input. Allreet ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Allreet and Gwillhickers. There are editors eyeing this navbox for deletion or splitting it up, although it hasn't been nominated as yet (the focus is now on another navbox which is up for deletion). To me this is one of the most interesting and full maps to the founding on the web, and is a complete guide to Wikipedia's articles on the subject. Please keep track of it and surrounding events if you can locate them, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Allreet and Gwillhickers. The nomination to split the navbox discussed above is now in progress at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 3#Template:Historical American Documents in case you still have an interest. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)