User talk:JRStutler/Archive 1

No Personal Attacks

I'm sorry if I've upset you by removing beer-u links from the beer page. However, I think that your recent response is inappropriate. Calling me an arrogant bastard, big ass, and blithering idtiot is not acceptable behavior on wikipedia, even if these are clever references to beers; see No Personal Attacks. I don't really care that you said insulting things to me, but I think it's important for you to know that this sort of behavior is forbidden.

Also unacceptable is that you've ignored what's at issue in this debate, which is whether (a) your page is of sufficient quality to be in an external links section and (b) whether, even if it is, it should be determined by you whether it it. Recognize that one of the reasons for the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest guidelines it to say "Hey, don't edit stuff in ways that are closely associated with your interests, because your interests may cause you a bias that you don't recognize." I really don't think that you're being very objective in decided to post beer-u on the beer page.—philosofool 16:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't upset me by removing the link. Your removal of the link was not the issue. Your insulting tone was. Apology accepted. My response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, not a personal attack. Apology proffered. Moving on...

I understand the conflict of interest issue. As I said before, it would not have been an issue had it been approached with a lighter tone. If there were others besides you complaining, I'd have no problem with the removal. RDWHAHB averagejoe 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2007

Your comment on my userpage

Hey, noticed your message on my userpage, and sorry to say that I don't think I know you. Your message ("So, I'm guessing you were maybe at Griffiss at some point? and probably not a Mean Widdle Kid. Right on, Red! --averagejoe 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)") doesn't ring any bells with me. I was never at Griffiss, though I did live in Rome, and no one ever called me "Red." Sorry! If you want to drop a line back in future, feel free to do so on my talk page. MArcane 03:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AH! That explains it! I was an AF brat, and my Dad was stationed at Griffiss, but we didnt live on base. I guess I'm indirectly referencing Red Skelton...though the quote was actually from MST3K, which was referencing Red Skelton. Complicated, eh? Anyway, we weren't stationed in Rome until '84, and we stayed there after the closure in '87 when the old man retired.MArcane 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hamilton college iowa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hamilton college iowa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan University

Hey, I replied. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing advice

In this edit you reintroduced unsourced content, and in addition, your edit summary was slightly uncivil. In future, please include citations to verify content. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer category decision

A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *^YES! 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Don't do this again or I will block you. The talk page isn't the place to have potentially defamatory gossip laying about. John Reaves 17:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what page it's one. We can't have unsourced stuff like that anywhere. John Reaves 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bob Krause photo portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Krause photo portrait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual marriage

I was thinking it over and while the Iowa talk page wouldn't be the right place for it our use pages are ours to do with as we please. If you're still interested and have the patience I wouldn't mind going over secular objections to homosexual marriage. - Schrandit (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait, between school and work I haven't had time to do too much around here as of late. Where to begin? First, I would like to question the idea that the current set of laws are discriminatory. To make such a statement is to say that there are rights the state grants to one set of people and not another. I do not believe this to be the case. If I were able to marry a man because I am a heterosexual man but a homosexual man could not marry a man because he is a homosexual I would see discrimination but for the present time we are all equals under the law. There is no right that I have that rest of the populous lacks. In my mind, to claim that laws against homosexual marriage are discriminatory to homosexuals is akin to saying that laws against polygamy are discriminatory against polygamists. In my mind, the effort to force the state to marry homosexuals is not attempting to enforce an equality of rights, but rather, to create a new right. Creating new rights is not necessarily a bad thing but I believe that is what is taking place, not the end of a discriminatory practice.

With that, I should say it is possibly short sighted for me to assume that I know all the arguments in favor of homosexual marriage. I generally hear ramblings about "equal rights" but there may be arguments other than these. What leads you to believe that the state should marry homosexuals? - Schrandit (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

/Archive 1

New message!

Hello, JRStutler. You have new messages at JBC3's talk page.
Message added 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ranking minority member

Are you aware of any sources for the idea that the "ranking member" should really be referred to as the "ranking minority member"? Not that I doubt you, but the entire wiki-article you referred to is unreferenced and the Senate website uses the term "ranking member" on its committee pages. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I really hadn't thought that far...I put too much faith in the Wikipedia article without noticing the lack of reference. I'm glad you said something, as it's a good reminder to me. Thanks!

So, with that mea culpa being said, I figured I should take a quick look around. Googled "ranking minority member" and second entry is this: [1]. A little deeper dig on C-SPAN turned up this: [2]. I trust C-SPAN is considered legit, so I'll update the article to cite the references.

Thanks again, and keep up the good works! --averagejoe (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you split out the article ranking minority member, really all the information from ranking member should go into the new article and most should be excised from the old. But before I do that, I wonder if we really need an article on the ranking majority member, especially as that position isn't considered important enough to be mentioned on the Senate committee membership listings, in the standing rules of the Senate, or in the Senate glossary? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, after looking at half of the House committee listings, the only time I've seen the "ranking member" listed is as "vice chairman", an article that has been rolled into chairman.

Therefore, I suggest that common sense, augmented by the naming convention at WP:COMMONNAME, suggests that the "ranking member" be merged with vice chairman and that ranking minority member retain its past location at ranking member, with a {{for}} tag at the top of the page to provide direction for those rare individuals who are unfamiliar with the common term. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi JR, all of these can use your help. Please see what you can add, and that will attract others to help. -74.242.255.29 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Your edit summary at FSM might have been worded better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

True that. Sorry, having a bad day. --averagejoe (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Me too, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope it gets better. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage! --averagejoe (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring confab

This is really funny. Thank you for making my day. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's only so much bullshit I can take before the filters drop. Jzyoyo would do better to go play in traffic. Cheers!--averagejoe (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)