User talk:SouthWriter



Archives
Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Main Page
Yeah, figured something like that, lol. No worries. If I'd thought it was on purpose you'd have known already xD

Heh. Wouldn't call it something I'm good at, just tolerant of doing it, lol.

Lordganon 06:13, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Castellon
Figure, given how far back on your page this section is, will start a new one.

I am not "lording" it over Kenny. He's been trying to put very unrealistic things, or things that are due to his own biases, into articles. I am not taking advantage of him at all, either - for the most part, my objections have been very minor with regards to his works, simple little fixes that have no real regard of the content of the articles in question. And, even these objections are actually compromises on my part.

He's put up plenty of things that I've haven't "approved," if you're going to use that language. If my voice is taken by anyone as "the authority" - note that I do not think that is true in the least - it's because in many cases, I'm the only one commenting on things around here. Unavoidable in that case.

His research, while admittedly very thorough, is also full of holes, as I have continually shown him. I've chosen to ignore most of it, if you'll notice.

I've not shared my opinion of him once, nor have I insulted him, far as I'm concerned, at all. I've helped him on several occasions, and continue to do so. I am indeed "playing nice." In fact, had I not "given" a little, and "played nice," I'd still be arguing that it should be obsolete, which, may I add, is where my personal opinion on the article still stands.

Now, Brian is going to do a slight intervention, at your request - which, may I add, was not needed - and can decide the matter between the two points. I'm done arguing with you about it. And, I have no vendetta against him or the article, but thanks for putting words I did not say, ever, into my mouth.

Lordganon 09:02, June 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I offended you, but nothing I have said, or any of the changes that have been made have changed your mind on this article. I agreed with you on many things, and steered the article to a semblance of viability.  Kenny's research was good, though not to your professional standards -- but you are the only trained historian working this wiki, so NO ONE can meet those.  Kenny is young, and of course he is biased.  But no article has to be perfect.  You wanted to mark the article 'obsolete' from the very beginning!  That is what I meant when I wrote the note to Brian.  Here is what you seem to be reacting to:


 * Check out LG's sometime caustic critique of the article and Kenny's attempts at reconciling the article not just to canon but to what seems to me a 'brutal' realism. I have tried my best to moderate what seems to be a vendetta on the part of LG against this article.


 * Please note, I didn't "put words in your mouth," but carefully stated twice that this is what seems to be the case. As for rather or not you 'insulted' (your word, not mine) Kenny, I seem to remember defending myself against a charge of "insulting" you when I did in no way mean it either.  You do not realize the way your opinion comes across, but you exude a confidence (to state in nicely) that your take on things is almost always right.  It can be overbearing at times.  That is, though just my opinion, and I could be wrong. SouthWriter 00:21, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Macau Rant
I'm really starting to be despondent at LG's recent antics. Sorry to involve you again, but I find an appeal to brass necessary. So basically you can see that I did a de facto adoption of Macau. LG continues to insist I am trying to be biased by temporarily moving the capital from 1987? to 2005? to this random city I never heard of. I would have never even thought of trying to promote Chinese …stuff in that way. I repeatedly explain all my backgrounds (see 1983DD talk page) and he keeps saying I'm biased. Okay he should just mind his own business and not care about my family heritage. He says I want to make Macau more Chinese on Arstar's talk page. I ask Arstar on his talk page simply whether he is allowing it and LG barges on the page and give his own reasoning. But no one asked him to say his reasoning. He keeps saying I am editing Macau without his permission but it doesn't, because he said I could do anything plausible that didn't interfere with canon. Please read what's been going on here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I really (to make assumptions that hurt other peoples' reputation) understand this is an honor thing. When I first proposed to changed the capital, LG declined. So naturally, he can't back out and save his dignity. I understand that, I do it too. So I ask you for your opinion. I am not going to argue here. This is not the place to argue about wind patterns. But I can't stand the amount of false accusations going around.

@LG. Using the space below please say whatever you want to say in the space below before SW has a chance to read this. I prithee. I'll even help you. "As I see it, Kenny is using this opportunity to promote his Chinese heritage because …" Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:14, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Kenny, it seems I beat LG to the punch this time. Thanks for the guided tour of the discussion. I had seen the exchange at the Macau and Main talk pages, but the other lines of discussion, especially that with Arstar, added a lot to the picture. It seems that even with your careful research, the moving of the capital - even temporarily - is not within the perimeters of what Arstar is willing to admit. Although you expanded the article quite a bit, when you moved the capital (regardless of the reason) it was beyond the permission to "only work on the economics and other asthetic changes."


 * Personally, I don't see how the city-state could have survived without a lot of help from the mainland anyway. It is a lot smaller than Hong Kong and its economy is far more dependent on a narrow industry that would almost instantly be reduced to nothing. Those that could would leave the island to be absorbed within the mainland population. However, Arstar apparently had already established a surviving population that includes some of the mainland with Macau as the capital. So I guess that is the way it will remain.


 * As for LG, he does seem to have it in for you. I have tried to reason with him, but he seems set in his ways. He is starting to be getting used to me being there to defend 'the little guy,' but I cannot just disagree to disagree. If LG had been around earlier, he may have given Yank and Arstar a hard time as well. Mitro gave them some trouble, but the tone did not seem too bad. Sunkist, on the other hand, seemed to draw the critic out of LG with a vengeance. I don't think he has anything 'personal' against you, but his expertise as a historian has him on guard to push for accuracy and 'realism' wherever he can. SouthWriter 04:35, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agreed with you at first. I didn't think Macau could have survived considering 90% of its economy is gambling (some statistic like that). But anyway, I have the right to post a request on someone's talk page without an immediate argument? I'm not asking you to disagree, I just need a way to counter the assumptions and false accusations against my cultural ties without having to give away my entire family history beginning with Adam and Eve. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:59, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Kenny, I have every right to counter you, when you make an argument against me, especially in cases when if I do not, the only thing, like with Arstar atm, that will be seen is your post and not what led to it. But, you don't seem to get that. Looking at your work in general, it is obvious that you have biases and make assumptions in some cases based on them. Far as I can see, despite you not thinking it so, this is one of them. Not to say I don;t have my own, but I bet you can;t figure out what they actually are ;) Lordganon 05:06, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply put, Kenny and Sun don't listen, far as I'm concerned. Even Caer does that, and you know my opinion of him. Nothing personal, at all - Remember all the little guys I've defended, especially Ven? - I'm always willing to help and offer advice, and sometimes its taken in the wrong way, like with Kenny and Sun. In this case, I know exactly what Arstar gave him permission to do, and he's now trying to do more than that. Even Yank, who along with Arstar created it originally, despite leaving an angry note on my talk page, ended up agreeing once he saw what Arstar told Kenny he could do. As for tone, I'm just not as willing to sugar-coat as Mitro is/was, lol - and being stubborn doesn't help either, xD.


 * As for Kenny, I have every right to counter you, when you make an argument against me, especially in cases when if I do not, the only thing, like with Arstar atm, that will be seen is your post and not what led to it. But, you don't seem to get that. Looking at your work in general, it is obvious that you have biases and make assumptions in some cases based on them. Far as I can see, despite you not thinking it so, this is one of them. Not to say I don;t have my own, but I bet you can;t figure out what they actually are ;) Lordganon 05:06, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, LG, glad to see you could make it. I tried posting the post above yours about the same time you did. And you, know, a little sugar wouldn't hurt. I tried to look back on your talk posts but you have posted so much, I couldn't follow much of them. It seems that you may have become a little more critical as you became an administrator, but I may be wrong. I think it is your chosen field of study that brings you to such a critical state, but then that is just my opinion. I would hope, really, that you are not so caustic in 'real life.' Anyway, take it from a man at least your father's age - with training in dealing with people - you do need to check your attitude. You can 'disagree without being disagreeable,' as the saying goes. And now, I am going to bed because it is now after 1 in the morning where I am. SouthWriter 05:22, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed myself but I'd thought I'd add a few things. First of all, it wasn't a change. There was no statement that said Macau was the capital of Macau for x period of time. Secondly, @LG I appreciate your trying to help but accusations do NOT help. Bias is something you should address in referring to the tone of an article, not to rub in peoples' faces during arguments.

I have biases, true, but what I do usually is I try to put everything in the most positive light possible. What may appear bias is that. If it looks like I'm glorifying terrorism in Piura or Stroessner's dictatorship (do I?) it's just my attempts to see that point of view, because honestly those go against everything I stand for. That way it prevents me from being biased in my writing. I might periodically change the articles to make them more neutral but it's better than wanking. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:39, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * The last word you used got me to looking for the verb in the dictionary - it's a good thing dictionary.com is thorough or I'd be quite displeased! I can only assume that your use of 'wanking' is applying the term to the an excessive use of cleverness. This term is slang used of computer hacks for their hacking and of 'talking shop' with other hackers. It is, however, very rude and offensive to those who speak 'the Queen's English' - that is, Brits and members of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, LG is Canadian, so I hope you were not baiting him with offensive language.


 * I don't really see any problem writing from one's biases, for true neutral point of view is not necessary in writing for this wiki, and especially for the 1983DD time line. However, the WCRB was created to try to get the neutral bystander flavor to the time line. Technically, all articles should be from the point of view of an agent WCRB with any material with a bias being 'quoted' as source material. If this were exactly like Wikipedia there would be no question that bias would be weeded out by the community. Having said that, we all need to guard against bias and prejudice in order to make the stories more interesting and, perhaps, more accurate to how the alternate history might actually work out.


 * For instance, your handling of the Peru article shows your political bias. You made sure a trouble-maker was out of the country or 'under the radar' on doomsday so as to allow for a more positive Fujimori government. Your creation of Castellon was originally an extension of Peru. Now, you take on Macau to add life to an ancestral home in a post-apocalyptic world. For some reason, LG has chosen to make a point with first Sunkist and now with you, that biased 'reporting' is not to be tolerated. I can only say that it is to be guarded against. Put your self in the head of a foreign reporter in a far away land. What would he see? How would he react to what he saw? SouthWriter 15:13, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I felt I would add a personal touch that only I could provide. If there are two equally possible choices in an Althist on a path for history, wouldn't an individual, most of the time, pick the one that favors them? Not every time, but more than 50%. With the variety of people from different backgrounds on the site, isn't this healthy?


 * Also, I really cannot attest to any bias in Macau. I honestly didn't care how lively or humble the state itself was so long as I could write about that area. I would have no idea whether my long-lost relatives would be starving, bickering on the outskirts of Guangzhou, fighting in the ranks of the Pearl River Liberation Society, or working in Macanese-owned factories in Dongguan, or actually owning those factories from the island, because I don't know anything about them except they were Cantonese. That could mean Macau, note the flag on my userpage that I decided to use to represent Guangdong. I didn't use the ROC flag, which would have been more accurate and would have promoted my INFATUATION of Chinese people and things, or even the flag of Hong Kong, which would have made more sense, but I chose Macau because early Chinese Peruvians have connections to Macau, not Hong Kong, and some of my relatives probably came earlier than the ROC. This is what I keep trying to say but LG is trying to keep insisting I have bias for some reason.


 * Honestly I understand the importance of this but bias is not something to accuse someone of in an argument, because it is impossible to prove or disprove. LG keeps trying to shove in my face how biased I am because of some random reason in an argument about wind patterns or something… What does he expect me to do, say I'm biased and gve him the argument? Like seriously that's just slander to ruin my reputation in front of others who read the argument and/or to give him the impression of winning, and it seriously does not feel good… It doesn't matter how biased I am, he shouldn't make assumptions like that to prove I am wrong in an argument. Especially this last one. "this is just Kenny being biased against Macau itself and in favor of the entirely Chinese regions inland." Directly to Arstar on his talk page. How is that not slander, even if it was true?


 * And sorry to use that term. I've seen it on the site multiple times meaning something along the lines of "creating an excessively biased timeline or article for the purpose of glorifying a country, person, or cause." It was sort of just an in-context type-thing; it isn't in any dictionaries… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:14, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured, that's not offensive to Canadians.

South, it's mostly that it's so obvious. I'm all for people giving insight into regions like that, and even in some cases making states. We're all biased to a degree, but with both Kenny and Sun, it's beyond that in some regards, as you yourself have noticed.

Actually, I am saying you are biased because, though you obviously do not realize it, you are, to some degree, biased with regards to Chinese and China - your writing shows it readily - and are definitely biased in other regards, as South pointed out. While some is expected, it's beyond that. Your early posts with regards to Macau, whether you realize it or not, show a dislike for the city and the Portuguese there, and this is just more of that. And, note that I have not once claimed that he is "infatuated" with it, just that he unconsciously leans that way. Not an assumption, but an observation. I have every right to both give Arstar information, and my opinion, as well as why I think he is doing it - not that Kenny thinks I am entitled to that, despite Arstar's wishes that I watch things for him.

The wind patterns have nothing to do with the matter. Just faulty reasoning, nothing to do with bias. (He is trying to use ground winds to prove he is right, when those have little to no effect on radiation, since it goes into the air)

As for slander, within the context used, it means either:

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

As far as I'm concerned, it is true - so, then, how is it false? How is it slander?

Now, why are we even talking about this? South already said that you went beyond your permission. That should have been the end of it. Sheesh.

Apologies for all of this, South.

Lordganon 02:04, June 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * You do realize I am white too? I'm only part Chinese, and isn't Peru essentially the same as Macau? Mix of cultures? What would possibly make me biased from the chifas and Corporation Wong and other Chinese Peruvian crap? Read the Wikipedia on Chinese Peruvian people and look beyond whatever stereotypes the people are not as Chinese-obsessed, they just go to Chinese schools (why am I explaining this?). Just because I removed most Portuguese culture out of Macau doesn't make me biased. It means that I don't believe a small island of Portuguese culture will survive when surrounded by Chinese culture for 28 years. It happens. Why are so many languages dying around the world? And surprise surprise, no one cares about your opinion so if it hurts another person you should keep it to yourself. And no it's not for the greater good. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:44, June 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize to me, LG, but I would say apologies are due to Kenny. "As far as I'm concerned" does not cut it.  Perception is the key here, and you are perceived by others as overbearing and obnoxious.  When called on it, you say it does not seem that way to you.  None of us are perfect, LG, and unless we are trained professionals, psychoanalyzing others is not a tool we can use to win arguments.  Even with professionals they use their skills 'professionally' (you'd think!) by keeping the analysis within clinical perimeters.


 * It may not be technically 'slander,' but I would say that your charges of bias and even prejudice with no more than your psycho-analysis are most definitely 'defamation.' Your constant talking 'down' to Kenny, and assuming motives that you cannot not know, indeed are seeking to lower his esteem before other editors in the community.  You butt in on discussions with others to claim authority over decisions he is only discussing, seeking to debunk them at every turn.  This can hardly be considered civil.  It is a form of bullying.  I have been patient with you, but I may have to take this up with Brian and the other Brass if it keeps up.


 * Kenny, you certainly expanded the article, even getting some of the Macannese all the way to Peru! I am surprised that there weren't some challenges with all the changes.  We are in agreement that the Portuguese police force led by the former governor turned 'president' could not have lasted long without essentially taking over the surrounding area.  With their structured government (at the time jointly Chinese and Portuguese) they could have pulled it off.  The success on the mainland, though, could not have happened without the dominate Chinese being a large part of the new government.  I agree, the Portuguese would have been displaced in importance fairly quickly. As you can see, I am coming down on LG, but I must say, your attitude is turning sour as well.  I can't say I blame you, but please, refrain from the sarcasm and spite.  We all need to seek to be civil in this community.  SouthWriter 03:22, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Let's end this peacefully. DK gets to add what he wants to add, and you get to walk away with this with at least some of your dignity left LG. Let me be perfectly frank with you. You have acted like a pompous ass the entire time over absolutely nothing. You thought you were acting "civil", but you were really acting like a childish bully. You thought you were following Arstar's wishes, but he only said to keep the nation the same size. This affair was caused by you and your vulgar abuse of the power of your position as caretaker of Macau while Arstar's away. The blame falls quarely on your shoulders.I only "agreed" with you in the begining because I had the impression that DK had committed some violation against Arstar's wishes. But, as it turned out, the "violation" was just an excuse for you to throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat.

Yank 04:40, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yank and SW that we need to get this solved as civilly as possible with as little heartbreak as possible. The change will be made, and all discussion concerning Macau's capital will be archived to a remote corner of the site. LG can keep his dignity and we'll put this behind us. Is that agreeable? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 06:32, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

USA (February's Legacy) - Re: Flag
There are actualy a few examples of nationalistic paties defacing the flag of their country with their logo once in power or even keeping the colours but changing the design. America First Party simply added their logo to show the new order and removing the stars is a more or less symbol of the fact that the country is now a more unified one.--Marcpasquin 13:37, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

South I would like
South I would like to know what you think of the guided hand Page concept.Empire1994 02:51, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Some more ideas for TA
Hey South, please forgive me for bothering you like this, but I wanted to let you know that I have proposed some new changes to the timeline that I wanted to get your opinion on. I have been getting back into the timeline lately, and I have been having exploding ideas to complete the timeline more. I can't do it without you, man. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:32, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Wasteland Europe
Not a problem, South. I was part of Wasteland Europe too, after all - but just like everyone else my attention died pretty fast. Perhaps rebooting the whole project is a possibility. Either way, that comment wasn't meant to be belligerent in any way, it was just a little... pendaticism. My forte. Sorry if it sounded like that. Fegaxeyl 09:06, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Mirror Universe World
Mirror Universe World: I got your messages on my page for Mirror Universe World. The Mirrror Universe isn't as simple as making all good guys bad and vise versa. For one Stalin was much more brutal for example. Since the lack of a POD seems to have been a major factor in my timeline being assigned Alien Space Bats, I need to fix that. What would be a good point of divergence for that timeline?Experiment632 12:18, July 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see where an alternate universe need not be a diametrically reverse, and neither need it be just 'backwards' as in the interesting case of the "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (B-grade sci-fi, ends badly). After reviewing the original "Mirror, Mirror" of Star Trek, I have to agree, all characters and nations need not be precisely reversed.


 * As for how you can turn this into an alternate history rather than an alternate universe, I think you'll have to go back to ancient Greece, the birthplace of "Western Civilization." I tried to find the reference to these beginnings online, but I distinctly remember certain patterns of thinking seemed to have changed several centries BC.  Take a look at the Greek philosophers. It was Epicurius that taught that 'pleasure' was the highest good.  He was also a materialist, defying the intervention of 'the gods.'  Though he felt that 'pleasure' came at no one's expense - neither harm or be harmed - other philosophies developed that warped his hedonism.  Perhaps the Romans could have been more influenced by some of their barbarian predecessors who had to live by their wits in the harsh northern parts of what became Europe.


 * Whatever the divergence, if removed from the present by two millenia, it can set the stage for a more violent "West." The eastern empires, then, could proceed much as they did in our time line at least until they clashed with the more agressive west.  Assume a militant edge to history but with much the same development in history.  For simplicity's sake, keep the noticeable POD close at hand, perhaps with Teddy Roosevelt taking advantage of his rise to power (maybe even being in on Harding's assassination?).  That way, the US could begin its climb to world domination.  [By the way, the Terra Nova Flag IS a rip off of one of the Terran Empire's flags (22nd century, whole world!) -- a clear indication that this history is influenced by the Star Trek "Mirror Universe!]


 * Suggested lead in:


 * The Butterfly Effect is the prime mover in alternate histories. In this history the small decisions of disciples of such philosophers as Epicurius in the third century before Christ turned reasonable men into ruthless predators in a world where every person of influence seemed to put himself first.  As the Spanish and Portuguese step foot on new lands, their ruthlessness was untempered by any missionary zeal.  In this world, Christianity had never become official, so Conquistadors rebuilt the 'new world' after their own image.  The British, a hundred years later, were able to take much of North America away from both the Spanish and the native Americans.  In the 1770's the colonists followed the example of the French in a bloody revolution with little regard to many of the freedoms known in our time line.


 * The Rise of the North American Empire, renamed Terra Nova in the twentieth century, was brutal to the weak and rewarding to the strong. The US began its rise by taking over Canada from the British in the years following its second war with that struggling Empire.  Less than a century later, after the government had crushed a rebellion of its own and extended its powers over the so-called states (in reality these became provinces), a war with Spain yielded all the land north of the Panama isthmus as booty.  By the end of the 'Great War' in Europe, colonial nations in South America began to crumble to the Empirical US government.  At the brink of the Second World War, all of the Western Hemisphere, from Bermuda to the Philippines, was part of the empire.


 * You are welcome to digest that into a shorter statement, use it as is, or just get an idea as to how the Mirror Universe of the Star Trek universe could have 'evolved' as it did. Then, your alternate history will make a great back story for Trekkies everywhere!  --SouthWriter 21:59, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

LordGanon
I want to talk to you about LordGanon's recent behavior. He seems to have taken it upon himself to become the wiki's Simon Cowell. Whenever someone like Mitro critisized someone, the purpose was to help improve the article. Whenever LG critisizes an article (or idea) the only purpose I can distinguish is LG's need to throw his "superior" knowledge into the face of the person creating it. All his recent comments reek of smug snobbish superiority. They basically tell the user opposing him "I'm right, and you are a complete idiot for thinking otherwise". Do we really need people like this in our wiki? I understand the need to regulate plausibility, but he seeks only to insult and demean any idea he has the slightest offense with. He's become a cyber-bully, plain and simple. Any person who demeans another person or his/her work for their own purposes is a bully.

Yank 19:59, July 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have noticed the attitude getting worse. I am not sure if granting him "Brass" status was a good idea, though he does seem to have a good grasp on world history as far as that goes.  However, I want to discuss this 'in the open,' for it is delicate and needs some private discussions before much can be done about it.  I see, though, that you have posted a complaint to the TSPTF talk page, which is a good first step.  I have posted a response there to your complaint.  SouthWriter 00:41, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Pep Talk
Hello, I want to say that I really appreciate your pep-talk, it helped. I will go through the proper channels this time. And thank you again for your suggestion about the independent space program on the 1983DD Mexico timeline. I do have a soft spot for Mexico since I'm from there, lol. It was also very nice to meet you. --Libra-11

No problem, Libra. Too often I miss new comers and fail to greet them properly. I am an adminitrator for the whole wiki, so if you have an idea for a new time line, feel free to bounce it off me if you want. A native Mexican would be a welcome addition to the 1983DD time line editors as well. I am sure BrianD, presently of Kentucky, would love to have your input as he tries to make sense of Mexico in a post-apocolyptic world.

By the way, please remember to 'sign' your posts by clicking on the "signature" button above or by adding three (name only) or four (name and time) tildes (Shift + ` in the far left of American keyboards). SouthWriter 00:23, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the tips, they came in handy. I've submmitted my proposal on the proposals page and to BrianD as well. Libra-11 00:54, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Beggining of the End
Thanks for clarifing that to me. I didn't quite know what "secret history" meant and so I just assumed (and assumed wrong). I still need to find a valid POD or multiple POD's that explain the reason for no nuclear weapons.

As to the constant world wars, I was thinking that actually there is only WW3, not WW4 (got a little carried away), and that the WW3 last for multiple decades, although sometimes there is an unoffical truce in place that subsequently gets broken and the war starts off again.

The reason for WW3 could be that, at the end of WW2, Japan is invaded and its teritorial possesions are split up among the victorious allies, including the USSR. When the Korean War happens (and it will in this TL), I think that some kind of border infringments in Japan would cause the USSR (which is looking for a reason for the war anyway) to jion in, causing a massive world war which will eventually drive the world to the ground Roguejedi 19:38, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * As much fun as doomsday scenarios are, I don't see the USSR wanting World War to continue. They had lost too much in WW 2, and the defeat of Japan without their help was just fine with them. They ended the war gaining quite a lot as the US caved on principle, allowing communism to grow almost unhindered for the time being. The invasion of Japan would have cost thousands of US and Allied lives, possibly reducing the threat of their being a deterent to Soviet expansionism. Instead of a cold war, there may have been a bit of diplomatic tension with the UN becoming more powerful. Proxy wars, then, would lead to UN involvement all over the world and perhaps even the rise of a "new world order" where there is the dreaded "one-world government." That in itself might be the "Beginning of the End," as nationalists worldwide reject the idea and start rebellions against the "United Earth" concept.


 * Any way, that is where I might take it. But I look forward to seeing how you take this. If you want a POD, I'd say look back to the early days of nuclear physics - maybe even before Einstein, and eliminate a developing strand of thought. Einstein did not start from scratch, so look back before him. SouthWriter 20:19, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * :This is not excaclty Doomsday, but the "one world order" would be interesting to do, but I still think a WW3 would be very plausible in this circumstance. the USSR had lost a lot in WW2, but gained a whole lot more after the war. I have a couple of books from the library about the USSR, so I will look in them for a time in history where the USSR would have gone to war except for the ever-present nuclear weapons.


 * I don't think that a "one world order" would come out of a few proxy wars, with all the hatered between countries in it, but a world war, especially a long one with no viable way to end it would, eventually, create the need for a world order, which I will probably add (I love controlling the world).


 * :I also have another idea for a cause of WW3. When the Korean War occurs and China joins North Korea, the US and NATO could declare direct war on China, escalating to an invasion of China and eventually, the USSR would join, and so on and so forth....


 * :Okay, here's another idea. The USSR does not get into WW3, and comes out the most powerful nation on earth, surrounded by broken nations. It starts the "one world order" idea, and is able to carry it out for the most part. Some nations, especially democratic nations, try to oppose the new Communist world, and lead to an ongoing "War for Freedom" Roguejedi 21:20, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

A Thanks!!
I just needed to thank u for welcoming to this wiki now and the first time (as user: 81.131.124.48). Thanks again!! :) Imperium Guy 21:05, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln
I thank you for give me fair warning in advance. I've erased the mention of the offending cities from the article. What do you mean "move my claimed area"? Does that mean I switch Lincoln's atention from Northern Nebraska to Northeast Kansas and Nothwest Missouri? Yank 17:08, July 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the way I see it, the government in and around the city of Lincoln would not have had the wherewithal to control the whole state, even if they did have legitimate claim to it (having been the capital of the state before Doomsday). Therefore, it would seek instead to control what was nearby and easily patrolled - that is, the River dividing the state north from south. The "claimed areas" of any other states adjacent to the OTL borders would be agressive behavior not in step with their isolationist and passivist nature. It would be good to reclaim the whole state, for sure, but that is not the way of the Lincolnites. Given the knowledge of 'another Nebraska,' they would either go to war for their "rights," or compromise with an equitable split of the land (preferably to some that they could actually, and easily, control).


 * As I said, Nebraska, USA, might possibly need a little continuity down to Kansas. But other than that, the land south of the Platte seems ideal for what Lincoln has become. To 'demand' the whole state is not a logical move on Lincoln's part (unless the 'united we stand, ...' part of Abraham Lincoln is the driving philosophy!). Does the state want another "civil war"? A united Nebraska is not out of the question, but an independent, not to mention land-locked (apart from the Missouri River), nation may be a bit more than the founding fathers of "the Republic of Lincoln" had envisioned. Expanding just for the sake of expanding would not be the question, it is a matter of sovereignty.


 * The other issue with the article, the liberal (libertarian?) constitutional ammendments that I addressed earlier, cannot be ignored. Your answer, though touching, was not satisfactory. I can feel for your loss, and my wife works with end of life situations daily, but the ending of life due to suffering is not an answer in a constitutional democracy such as Lincoln. Your answer dealt with euthanasia rather than abortion, but as it stands, the 'amendment' to the constitution allowing 'abortion' for a deformity or fatal conditions is cruel and inhumane. In fact, what you state is infanticide, for it mentions the infant in a condition that cannot be known fully until after it is born. Like I said elsewhere, it would be better to leave the laws of the state of Nebraska in place when it came to abortion, not to mention infanticide!


 * Also, the state would not have been on the leading edge of "gay rights" in the 1980's, but if the amendment states that since marriage is a legal contract, a partnership, no matter the persons involved, viewed the same under the law. That way, it would be logical for people to make arrangements for themselves knowing that the law was the same (even if 'people' did not understand) and church-state issues are avoided. SouthWriter 20:24, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

India
Most of the India article is on the UIP, and their actions in India. And, that section of text is already said through the text above that part on the article. The other nations are barely mentioned elsewhere in the article, if at all, so they need the descriptions. I figure the UIP doesn't need one, because it already says basically the same thing further up on the page, and you're not getting down that far without seeing it. Lordganon 16:47, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Improper Nomination
Thanx for supporting me. You have my gratitude.

Bobalugee1940 16:52, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

South, the format was obviously wrong - if you look at the edit history, you'll see that it was pretty noticeable - and there is nothing insulting at all about that. He claimed on my talk page to have copied and pasted it, yet if had done so, it would have been correct.

And, following precedent set by Mitro - which I agree with - since not one of those was correct, they got removed immediately.

Note that you failed to do it correctly as well, but to be done with this I will change it to be correct. But I won't do it again.

Lordganon 17:54, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, I reviewed the logs, and the two times that Mitro dealt with the problem of format, he complained and then FIXED it. This was with Venezula in September of 2010 and Bobalugee in March of 2011.  Yes, it was Boblugee, and no, Mtro did not "remove it immediately."  He was patient and corrected the minor error.


 * And yes, and if I can make a mistake, so can Boblugee. Thank you for catching that.  None of us is perfect, I copied from the actual entry and pasted in Visual mode.  I knew it didn't look right, but I was distracted (real life) and did not go back after seeing it had been published.  Why is so hard to be nice, LG?  SouthWriter 19:08, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

And I've talked to him about it in the past too. He knows better, and I know that. Nor did I once say that Mitro "removed immediately." Precedent is that they are improper, and that remains as such.

And, for the record, I was nice - Bob is the one that needs an attitude adjustment. Have a look at the history of his talk page - you'll note I removed the "Final Warning."

I'm not talking about this any longer. He was in the wrong, and failed to rectify it. You've chosen to make an issue out of a non-issue. And that is all I have to say.

Lordganon 19:16, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Jobsworth
Not a problem, South! We British have a thing for brevity, after all. ;-) I'll hang in here, alright - on your side in this little power schism we have. Fegaxeyl 22:29, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the definition of "jobsworth" is:

"A person in authority (esp. a minor official) who insists on adhering to rules and regulations or bureaucratic procedures even at the expense of common sense"

Going by that, Feg called me an idiot. Just to be perfectly clear.

Lordganon 08:41, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll note I am answering here, since it just makes more sense even if the "custom" is to bounce between talk pages. At least, it makes more sense to me. Anyway, I would not have mentioned it on Feg's talk page (I'm guessing you read what I wrote over there since none of these user talk pages have a bit of privacy!), if I had not read the definition. It piqued my attention when he used it on Bob's talk page. I was careful not to 'mention names' when I commented, but it's no secret I was agreeing with Feg on your recent behavior and attitudes.


 * That definition says nothing of the mental abilities of a jobsworth, only of their behavior. Common sense does not require intelligence, just a little bit of discernment. Bureaucrats that fit the definition are undoubtedly very intelligent. Feg did not call your an 'idiot,' he called you a 'jobsworth.' Words mean things, LG, and Feg chose a good word that described what he saw happening in this situation. You have accused me of insulting you, even after I in good faith explained everything I said as meaning no offense, so I know you are 'thin skinned.' Yes, Feg meant that term as a rebuke, though he only wrote, "Does the word 'jobsworth' mean anything to you?" - technically only insinuating he was talking about you. Yes, he was talking about you, but he couched in such a way as to let YOU come to the conclusion. Plausible deniability, of a sort, I guess.


 * About the process of removal due to form, I just reviewed the log for the Nomination page, and, contrary to what you said on Bob's talk page yesterday, it was you, not Mitro who added the rule to 'control' all those inexperienced young editors that can't seem to follow simple instructions. Hmm, kids will be kids, or something like that. You had been removing nominations for a couple of weeks, and then notifying the 'victims,' apparently after having taken over for Mitro. And then, four days after Mitro retired, you add the rule on March 31. So, where Mitro patiently changed the errant nominations, it was you who got impatient, putting the line about removal due to incorrect format. NOW it was clear, folks have been warned right there on the page!


 * And so, it wasn't about Bobalugee, and I apologize for not more thoroughly investigating the log. Apparently, even with the suggestion (Please ...) to cut and paste for simplicity, some people think they can put in format that does not 'fit the standard' and get away with it. You are enforcing the rule, to the letter, which you yourself inserted on March 31. Bob seems a little more mature than some of the others, but he is just the first one since June 2 (over two months!) to dare put up a nomination under the new regiment. And so, yes, LG, you are acting like a bureaucrat adhering to a rule you wrote to 'force' editors to do things the right way. Hopefully, the changes I made to the page (showing what it is supposed to look like) will keep others from failing in this task. SouthWriter 20:02, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

To say that someone does something at the "expense of common sense" is to call them an idiot. And I have not done so "at the expense of common sense" once.

I added it to the page, true enough. But you did not bother to look anywhere else, obviously, or you would know just how wrong you just were.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Alternative_History_talk:Featured_alternate_history#Sample_Nomination

To quote Mitro:

"I am at wits end about this. I wrote the exact format for how nominations are to be presented under the section titled "Sample Nomination". All anyone has to do is copy it directly and insert the correct information. Simple right? Then why the hell has the last several nominations failed to do this? Is that hard to copy and paste something? Is there something confusing about the directions? Unless I hear some sort of logical explanation, for now on I am removing any nomination that does not follow the correct format. I am sorry if this is an overreaction to a minor problem, but I fail to grasp how people who are skilled enough to use a computer are incapable of following simple directions! Mitro 16:01, March 21, 2011 (UTC)"

Note the bolded parts. Mitro said that 11 days before I put in that line. I put a rule that he explicitly said on the talk page onto the article page so that everyone would know and we'd avoid any trouble because of it (guess I was wrong there, eh?) But I guess you didn't see that, did you?

Lordganon 20:49, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, LG, I did not see that. Again, I apologize for not researching the talk page. However, it does not change the fact that you wrote that Mitro had made the change.  I can understand now why you made the rule, though as Mitro admits it was an "overreaction to a minor problem.'  There is obviously a problem in the 'cut and paste' proceedure.  For one, the "non-wiki" tags will mess things up if the editor choses to use 'source mode' (it happened with one attempt by Alexanders I believe).  Second, If you take an actual nomination as the template instead of the sample (as I did with Bobalugee's in an attempt to maintain his signature as a link), the formatting disappears.  If you take this copy and transfer it to source mode, you lose the formatting (the reverse of the  problem faced by Alex).


 * I can understand Mitro's being stressed out over it, and it is plain that it wasn't the wiki that was stressing him out. Because of the pressures of life - new marriage, new carreer, etc. - he resigned active wiki duties soon thereafter.  You have done an admirable job of filling in the gap left when he left, and I regret I have not been able to do as much as I would like (I, too, am facing quite a bit of stress).  Hopefully I can continue to be active.  There are so few nominations for featured article - and hardly any feedback when there are nominations (good or bad), that pouncing on these format problems is the wrong approach.  It is not so much trouble to just change the formatting (a few key strokes in Visual Mode) when an othewise correct format (all the lines, but not formatted) is there.


 * I am sorry to have come down on you the way I did. And I have changed the page to hopefully prevent further mistakes that would require your attention on this manner.  This wiki is not worth so much stress as to have each other at one another's throats.  Keep up the good work and try to see things through the eyes of others when it comes to conflict resolution.  SouthWriter 21:23, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Castellón
I would appreciate the help you can offer. Would it be too much trouble for you to just rewrite it how you think it would be accepted? I want to put this water under the bridge. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:45, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! If this is the final version that has no further debates, feel free to put it up. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:22, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Constable Nomination
Excuse me for not noticing the nomination; it must have escaped my notice among the various bot edits. I would be glad to accept the nomination. Although I might not be fully active during the school year, I will do my best to perform the necessary duties. Also I've done a little bit of anti-vandalism work, and tried to monitor map games for sockpuppetry so I would appreciate further rights. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:04, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Quite frankly, LG has overstepped the bounds of abusing his power by objecting. Not the fact that he objected, but the way he's trying to smear me and ruin my reputation. Seriously, I'm one of the first people ever to be objected for personal qualities, and that hurts. Not only that, but he's presenting his arguments in the most offensive possible way. I think the fact that he's turning the website into a dictatorship is a lot better reason to kick him off TSPTF than implausibility would ever be. Clearly he believes if I were appointed to TSPTF, I would pose a threat to his power, so I am going to do just that. Once the verdict over my TSPTF request passes, would you support (you can finish the sentence)? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:37, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

I am well within my rights to object to a nomination when I feel that the candidate is unsuitable, and when asked to do so, to state my reasons. Reasons I have stated elsewhere on several occasions. And now making an objection is "abusing my power?" Seriously? There's nothing I can do about it if I lose the vote, simple enough. Kenny needs to take a chill pill. Lordganon 01:07, August 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Kenny, a constable has very little 'power' when it comes to influencing the decisions of 'the Brass.' An attitude of spitefullness will not get you very far on the TSPTF.  In fact, it would be grounds for dismissal from the administration.


 * LG, it was not the objection that was unsuitable, but rather the way in which you stated it. You compounded the problem by continuing the personal attack in the discussion section.  To properly submit an objection, reasons should be presented - either in the objection or in discussion.  Personal editing style matters little in the choice of a Constable.  Qualifications for the job are to help control vandalism and trolls. SouthWriter 14:03, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Alaska
Near as I can see, Vlad hasn't given anything about it to anyone, so it's still him in charge. More or less means that we get to watch it, I suppose, lol. Lordganon 14:20, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Vinland
That is all true... I think we should at first have the vikings dominate North America but then lose much of it to antoher nations,

but they still manage to be a 21st century power

Alexanders 01:58, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Alex, being a major power in the 20th century would indeed carry over into the 21st century. The Vinlandese (is that right?) would have a very long history, and probably control much of OTL eastern Canada. It just needs to stay away from controlling "New England" in order for the reduced USA to work the way that it's creator wishes. SouthWriter 21:33, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Edits in Abraham Lincoln
You're welcome, South. Yes, i think the same about the anon. By the way, you and the others go to continue with Two Americas? Is an great timeline, I like to read it. :D Regards! --Katholico 22:23, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like the project. It's NuclearVacuum's idea and I started making suggestions and he let me on board. He gave it a "reboot" a little while back and I am trying to readjust to his changes. The idea to allow Abraham Lincoln to live was his. It meant changing the chart of presidents and the blurb I wrote about Andrew Johnson, but I think it still will work well. Nuke's a transplant to the south, and I live here, so I have made it a little less radical as to the nature of the CSA after the war. SouthWriter 00:28, September 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * oh, i see, yes, i too noticed some differences between the articles and the CSA maps, which including now northern mexico... By the way, this remember to me, that maybe you could help me in an matter?... i'm working in an timeline in the spanish wikia, and one of things which i'm trying to resolve is about what would result from a US defeat in the mexican-american war. i mean, what could happen with the elections in the next years for example (i wrote that Zachary Taylor died in the war)... and this how could affect the date of begin of the american civil war? this could be trigger before o later? If you can tell me your opinion I will be grateful. Regards! --Katholico 00:21, September 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks ver much for!! Yep, this is very very useful for my timeline :) Two things:
 * 1) Curiously... the election of Lincoln in 1861 and a civil war in this date (or early) seem to be something "inevitable" according several opinions what i read in internet. jeje but, there is not any possibility of that the civil war take place couple of years later? I must confess that i wrote originally in my timeline that the civil war begin in 1873... jeje now that i'm revising several things in the timeline, i think that maybe that's impossible xD
 * 2) The other, how probable is that US could achieve the support from France and/or Great Britain, or another european power? I believed that they were more inclined to support the CSA? --Katholico 21:32, September 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, i will think very well in the foreign intervention in the conflict. For the other, which you suggest is the best form for to prevent the election of Lincoln in 1860? He lost somehow the nomination for this time (but gain for a next time)? or one of other presidential candidates achieve the support from more political sectors? In any case, i assume that the civil war not could be postponed for much years, right? Regards and thanks! --Katholico 02:03, September 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfect... mmmm a map for the this elections maybe i will have to make later, but for now, is enough for me, just to have decided who would be president. In any case, until when you think could be postponed the war? With a Breckinridge's presidency we have four years more, but i assume that the tensions still would be in increase... as i said before i originally in my timeline wrote that the civil war begin after the election of Lincoln but in 1872 (jeje ^^U), and probably this would be unlikely... what thinks? 1864, 1868 or 1872? Thanks, Regards! --Katholico 00:15, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * mmm, then, if I understand you well, you say that the best choise could be the 1864 elections, with Lincoln/Seward as candidates against Breckinridge who would run for the reelection. Lincoln won but an possible threat of another war with Mexico moves the focus of attention of all country to this situation. And when this is resolve, the Southern states finally rebels against the Union government in 1868, right? (so, this before or later to the probable reelection of Lincoln?). About Mexico, this new tensions with US, i think that are probables in my timeline (i'm still working in the history of Mexico, but at least, the french intevention and the second mexican empire not will happen here). Thanks once more! --Katholico 06:20, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: Here is the list of president that i'm making, the timeline is still in construction, and several articles are under revision jeje ^_^ Then, don't be surprised if you see many incoherences xD --Katholico 03:34, September 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, thanks :) Yeap, the Two Americas idea i liked (and the fates of Lee and Grant sound great! :)). At first, i wrote the victory of the union, but now probably could be a good option for my timeline, because i planned to transform to Brazil and Mexico in the powers of America continent during the XX Century. However, you think that would be possible an reunification before 1950, maybe as result of a new war with a Northern victory? And, for the second term of Lincoln in 1868, the vicepresident should be Seward again o Andrew Johnson? --Katholico 05:04, September 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much South! :D I will follow this for continue my timeline. I read the list of presidents of the CSA in Two Americas, and i noticed that the Democrats control the government for more of 80 years. :O There is other political parties in the CSA after his foundation? Regards! --Katholico 18:56, September 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood. What parties you consider that could emerge? With this, I could make me an idea for the CSA of my timeline. Regards! --Katholico 19:43, September 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the discussion about this very thing. Most of the ideas were not mine, but I concur that they were good suggestions:
 * Talk:President_of_the_Confederate_States_(Two_Americas)
 * This is a list of twelve possible parties that could arise. Take your pick! SouthWriter 20:42, September 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the list South! :D The names seems to be very good, i will do the best for to choose the more appropriate. By the way, i corrected the name of the ATL wife of JFK Jr., Patricia. Regards! --Katholico 03:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again South :) I have been working in list of US presidents and now i would want to ask for your opinion about some points please:


 * As in this time the vicepresidents are not replaced, so when Daniel Webster assume in 1853 he don't have VP, right?.
 * Buchanan's Vicepresident in 1852: like OTL he was VP of Pierce?
 * For the Buchahan's second term the vicepresident would be John C. Breckinridge like OTL.
 * The Breckinridge's running mate in OTL 1860 was Joseph Lane but i'm considering that maybe Lane died during the ATL America-Mexican, specifically in the Battle of Buena Vista, which here was an mexican victory (Zachary died in this battle by the way). If this is case, so i'm thinking that the VP could be Jefferson Davis.


 * What thinks? Thanks for your time!! Regards! :D --Katholico 06:14, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Grant, Lee and beyond
Hi South (again xD), i'm thinking about the lifes of the Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee in my TL, as we talk before. I must say that I would not like to remove any of the two from the scene early. I want that both are alive until the civil war. For Grant, I think that he could participate during the Border Conflict to prevent another with Mexico (i read that in fact he was opposed to the war in 1846, something that could result very useful for my tl). For the other hand, Lee probably continue an life appeases during the 1860', until he join the Confederates like OTL. He die in 1870 OTL, but is possible that here live a couple of years more? For the duration of the war, i thinking that probably this last three years and ended in an stalemate (i'm thinking if is pausible an britain intervention during the war or an different war after maybe caused by a incident, but i need work more in this). Regards! --Katholico 05:55, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that i understand the first things that you wrote, but the last thing not much jejeje ^_^U (my english again xD) Are you said that in case that Lee and Virginia remain loyal to the Union, he command the Union forces until his death in 1870 and is succeded by Grant, and war ended quickly? and if Lee join to the Confederacy and lead the southern forces until his death, Grant is elected president in 1872, and the war continues until that a ceasefire is signed and the CSA gain his independence? I read correctly, or maybe no?... Please can you explain me again it? jeje Regards and thanks! --Katholico 21:08, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, i understand now xD thanks very much! I have been thinking that i would like that, in my timeline, Lincoln has an "better" destiny (and perhaps, a new term in 1881?). How this could be possible? Maybe if the war ended after he end his presidential term? or all this is highly unlikely? Thanks again for all your help!! --Katholico 03:04, October 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost I forget the detail that, at this time, a US president could be reelected more of once. An Lincoln's third term sounds good for me. So, Grant would be the next president in 1877 and maybe reelected in 1881. Rutherford B. Hayes succeced him like OTL by a one term. And for next president, i'm reading the wikipedia articles and i think that could be James G. Blaine instead James A. Garfield... what thinks? --Katholico 04:18, October 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK; for the Lincoln's third term Seward probably wouldn't be the VP (given his health), so you think the Andrew Jonhson could gain the position?. Grant's Vicepresident would be Schuyler Colfax in both presidencies because Wilson died in 1875. For 1885, the Vicepresident of Rutherford B. Hayes should be William A. Wheeler like OTL, who serve until his death in 1887 (i'm trying to find another possible vicepresident in the OTL elections, but the majority died around 1885 and 1887 :/). Finally, in the case of Blaine in 1889 i think that is more complicated so i will read more for to find a good candidate. Regards! --Katholico 21:47, October 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello South! I have been reading for to find someone who might be Lincoln's Vicepresident during his third term. You previously suggested that the Republicans had tried to go with one solid ticket for the election. I bring the next names, what you think?


 * Henry B. Anthony
 * Hamilton Fish
 * Edwin M. Stanton
 * William P. Fessenden
 * Rutherford B. Hayes
 * Montgomery Blair
 * Benjamin Wade


 * There is someone that might be? Or maybe not? Thanks, Regards! :) --Katholico 05:46, November 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * About the above candidates for the 1872 VP slot:


 * Anthony and Fish are good candidates.
 * Hayes is probably the best choice.
 * Stanton and Fessenden die before 1872
 * Blair and Wade probably would not be a good fit, though Blair might work under the right circumstances.
 * SouthWriter 20:23, November 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ups! I din't noticed the deaths of Stanton and Fessenden jeje ^^ Anyway, thanks South! Then, i will decide the VP between someone of 3, and i will put in the list. Regards! --Katholico 20:47, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

IP again
Hi! A IP user changes some words in the Abraham Lincoln article, you see it? --Katholico 20:05, September 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I rolled it back. The changes were minor, but the anonymous user changed the 'drama' I had put into the scene. Thanks for catching that, though. SouthWriter 20:13, September 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem :) For the moment, this IP editions it does not seem to be a big problem, but if this continue maybe a solution could be the protection of the page. Regards! --Katholico 20:24, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Help with French Trafalgar, British Waterloo, please?
Hey SouthWriter, its been a while since we last talked, huh?

Anyway, now that I have a more stable internet connection and (some) free time, I've been doing my best to drive onwards with my main timeline, French Trafalgar, British Waterloo. However, I've hit a bit of a stumbling block in regards to North America, and would like to see if you could help me.

In FTBW, I have a unencumbered UK winning a resounding victory over the US in the War of 1812. In the peace treaty, almost half of the Louisiana Purchase is "bought" from the US by England to stop their Westward expansion. That was an earlier idea of mine when I first started it two years ago, and is, frankly, a weaker point in my TL. However, I believe I can use that in order to heighten tensions between the North and South US, as well as between the US and Britain. My idea was to that illegal American settlers would set up homesteads in the sparsely populated, and even less well-defended land. However, it would also mean that the Free-Slave state balance would be tipped once Texas is brought into the Union after an American-Mexican War, and California becomes an independent nation, the Pacific Republic. I believe this would create more equal sides in the resulted War of Confederate Independence in 1858, leading to the South eventually winning. I do have maps of what happens to the US here in order to help describe it easier. I'm just wondering if the story would make sense, or if other ideas would have to be considered.

I hope you get some time be able to help me, and I would be forever thankful for this. Tbguy1992 03:05, September 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. I know its a bit more left wing than OTL, but that is kinda where I thought the world might be, like some times lines are more conservative and that. It just depends on how the world develops, I think, and had I written things differently from the get go, I might have made it more conservative, barring my beliefs. It just seemed that was the way that this TL was going from the beginning, frankly. I do try to be somewhat balanced, but it can be difficult if you don't have much time (like me, a university student with a full course load) to read both sides of every issue then try to balance it. So I just try to go with what will drive the story along, which I think is more important than ideology or beliefs, yes? Tbguy1992 01:35, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, a writer writes what is in his heart to get a message out. If it is a good story it will carry that message into the hearts of the readers. That is, I think, the work of a poet, or a propogandist ;-)
 * At best, a work of fiction should move the reader to think, to change his mind in some little way. If your story is balanced by research into other ideologies, it may even change you! The point is, fiction is not good fiction unless it makes the reader to think. A precautionary tale, perhaps, takes things to a logical conclusion which will make one think twice before going to the point to which the tale leads. It is so with alternate history - for better or for worse. You make your home town the best of all possible worlds in this ALT. Yours remains a world like the one you know while all those worlds with which you are 'at odds,' so to speak, move in directions that make them worse. What have you learned in the excercise?


 * I am not scolding, but only offering a little wisdom that real life has lent me in the forty years since I was your age. Things did not go as I dreamed they would - far from it, really. I am wiser, but not any better off in this world's eyes. I am stronger in my faith, I hope, than when I started my journey into adulthood. I have learned what is important. I have walked in the steps of One much greater than I - the One who suffered for me so that I might live a life much greater than what I could ever imagine. That one of which I speak is Jesus Christ. He is the one who is control of history, and everything that has happened has happened for a purpose. May your study of history help you to understand the purpose for which you walk this earth, Tb. SouthWriter 02:37, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 *  Lordganon 08:11, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my talk page, not the talk page of an article, and I am not demanding anything of the reader, Tb in particular. This is my testimony and I am fully aware of "NCNC."  Look at the whole post, LG.  I am closing out the discussion with 'words of wisdom' to a writer who has stated that ideology does not matter in writing a piece of fiction.  I happen to disagree.  Literature, even written history, is not neutral. The writing of the most unbiased historian is still covered by his choice of what to record.  I do not ask, and certainly don't demand, that anything be changed in the time line in question.  I only offer advice, in my own personal page in this wiki.  Thank you, though, for the reminder. SouthWriter 13:05, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Janiot (Kennedy)
Well, first i must say... poor Miguel Yenos XD But well, this is funny of the alternate history :P About Patricia, I only knew her for the news of CNN en Español, but now after read his biography she seem to be good option for Kennedy., besides that she is latin american, which give to JFK Jr. an important bond with the continent in this new world post-Doomsday. Regards! --Katholico 04:19, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

I would like your input if you have the time.
South, when you have the time can you come over to the main Doomsday discussion page and give your thoughts regarding a subject. I recently posted some major concerns I have regarding how we have been looking at communications in the post-war world in the fundamental issue section. As both a long time contributor and the author of the EMP article, I would love to have your input. LG I fear is not willing to listen and I don't believe my thoughts are as implausible as he makes them out to be. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 01:02, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Kunarian
Week is standard for the kind of block.

Actually, it was extended to a month because, besides the complaints - which you'll note, I did nothing to halt, overall, and even made a post on the TSPTF page myself about - he continued to post as his nations on the map games as an anon. A very obvious and blatant attempt at ignoring the block, and defeating its purpose. A complaint - or even many, as he did - is one thing - though, still having the IPs banned as per protocol - but attempting to continue to post anonymously to circumvent is another thing entirely, and definitely against the rules. Not spite, in the least.

And, for the record, if you didn't notice, Oer supports my decision.

Lordganon 09:15, October 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I was missing. I looked on your talk page for complaints and/or discussion of this manner, and found none. The banter in the talk pages of the map games themselves didn't have any indication of a problem. I do not check the TSPTF page though I guess I should add that to my 'follow' list. I am not on as often as I used to be, so I miss anything that doesn't come through my email notices. I was asking because I could not figure out what was going on. It would seem that you have things under control. I don't follow the map games anyway. I am sorry if I misjudged you. Have a good day. SouthWriter 01:55, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that.

Thanks for the support, South.

Lordganon 05:45, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Doomsday
Ive been thinking ill think I go through your proposed site for the collectivist city state, just thought I should thank you for the idea Alexanders 01:00, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Alex, write up a proposal for the commune to reclaim Jekyll Island after it was abandoned. It is going to have to take quite a bit of research to make it plausible, but it should be interesting. SouthWriter 20:40, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

The Henderson Family

 * Earlier, on Alex's talk page, I posted a concern about the insertion of a line on the 1983DD North Carolina page under "Famous Persons" about Seth Henderson, proposed first president of the Outer Banks. I looked Henderson up, and noted the relationship with user Alexanders, AKA "Tommy" who had also made a recent addition of a new 'honorary citizen' using a fictional character in place of himself (who would not have been born).  I first pointed out that 'fictional' characters are not suitable to that page and then welcomed a scenario that might place Mr. Henderson in place as president of a founder of the new island republic. SouthWriter

My grandfarther was invited by Dare County to be Superentdient once in the 60's and again in the later 70's, he was a very popular man all through his life in Dare County. He was a Tour Guide at the national park service in the late 80's and early 90's.

My real mother is vaporized in this timeline and my dad marries someone that was raised in Dare County.

The child is "Mark Henderson"

Alexanders 20:13, October 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out on your talk page, Alex, I will be glad to consider incorporating your grandfather into the history of the Outer Banks. However, as a retired school superintendant he will need some sway with county council from 1983 to 1987 to become president in 1988.


 * As for the Mrs. Henderson of our time line - your mom - it is probably not technically true that she was 'vaporized' even if she was in a city that recieved a direct hit. Most bombs were air bursts, doing their damage with shock waves and fireballs.  Such attacks would likely be over down town, meaning some level of survivablity in residential areas, especially on a Sunday evening.  I know the rule of thumb is 'when in doubt, nuke it,' but we would need to know the city exactly as to whether your mother had a chance, was killed outright, or something horribly in between.


 * However, if your father must marry a local woman, and a 'half-you' is the result, it is certainly an option to insert the character in the story line of the Outer Banks. You would have your own experiences to draw upon and you could even give the character your own name if you wanted (though I'm guessing your mother named you).


 * While on the subject of the honorary citizen page, the inclusion of both your grandfather and your father would be proper. Another editor included his father who had two children by a different wife because of the changes in the time line.  SouthWriter 20:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Henderson Family
Ok Alexanders 20:31, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You really messed me up, man! What I mean is, answering me on this page immediately like you did made my attempt to post the original fail. I copied my new post, reloaded and all came out alright. This is why I like to follow posts 'in line' - to assure continuity of thought. I have begun to do it the other way, since most editors seem to prefer it, but it is a bit of a headache.SouthWriter 21:00, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Request for Assistance as Moderator
South, I would like to request your assistance as a moderator with a problem as time and convenience allows. A serious disagreement has erupted between me and LG, to the point it has gotten nasty. Given you are an outsider with no stake in the discussion, albeit a neutral view point, I am asking if you would review our discussions and give us your thoughts. I have no intentions of posting anything further regarding the subject than what I have unless asked. I will adhere to your judgment. I will also be asking Brian if he will as a moderate as well. There is no rush. Our discussion may be found under the Nimitz section on the main discussion page. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your thoughts.--Fxgentleman 12:37, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, South, he is the one that went nasty. Not myself. Nor is there any "serious disagreement," in the end. Lordganon 14:50, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed not only this exchange but also all of the articles that LG has introduced (the task that took most of my day!) and I am posting my response in the string of the Nimitz discussion. I hope my response there reflects today's labors coherently, since I will attempt a short answer to this problem. I must say, though, that far from an 'outsider,' I will attempt to be neutral. SouthWriter 04:10, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

South, I had the opportunity this evening to review your analysis. I would like to thank you for the hard work and consideration you put into it. I apologize for having involved you into this situation, however I felt it had reached a stage that it required a mediator and I appreciate your willingness to put aside your time to do so. You essentially addressed the crux of my concerns and issues in the matter. I am satisfied with your decision and will adhere to it and consider the matter closed.

On a separate note, I appreciate your remarks regarding my articles. This is the first time I am aware of, since I don't follow such matters, that someone has read everything I have written. We normally don't get much feedback on our articles so it was nice to receive it. As much as I appreciate the compliment I think there are a lot of good articles that have been written in the scenario. You indicated you had some questions regarding my Middle East articles. As your time allows please feel free to contact me on my discussion page and I will do my best to answer them. Thanks again for your time.--Fxgentleman 00:14, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hi South, I just wanted to follow-up on one thing. The backstory I alluded to about the Nimitz came from this link http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/ANZS_Commonwealth_(1983:_Doomsday). It turned up during a search I did while doing my research, but I did have problems locating it later. I don't believe it is defunct, however please feel free to correct if it indeed is. Hope this helps. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 04:38, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hey South, since I seee you are still online can you take a look at the question I posted on my talk page earlier and also let me know your thoughts as well regarding the peice I posted on the Nimitz discussion yesterday. There is no rush. Thanks much and goodnight.--Fxgentleman 05:04, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Another request for assistance
Could you help, Lordganon has decided that my IC actions are somehow extremely personal and rude (my suspicions are because he is biased in favour of Yank, though he will deny everything, he has done it before) despite that it is simply in character he has decided I have to cut out my "behaviour" when I explained why I was Roleplaying in such a way and questioned him about what I was doing wrong and how it was worse than Yanks actually personal attacks against me, he simply repeated his response saying that, again, I needed to cut out my "attitude". Lordganon has something against me no doubt after our last encounter. This time rather than him having free reign to do as he pleases and block me should I disagree further with the way he is dealing with a roleplay situation (which shouldn't need dealing with anyway), I would prefer if you could look it over and tell me what I have done wrong (if anything) and maybe tell Lordganon to stop trying to lay into me just because we have disagreed in the past. Kunarian 19:23, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Kunarian, but I don't think I can help there. I am totally unfamiliar with map games and the role playing that goes on there. From the Principia Moderni talk page, it appears that you stepped back in to a situation that had changed in your absence. I would suggest that you step back and evaluate the game for what it has become in the month you were away. Don't get personal against other players and listen to LG, for he is much more familiar with how those games are run than I am. SouthWriter 02:39, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Funny how he thinks I would ever be biased in favor of Yank, lol. He's been, quite frankly, an ass in his "roleplaying," and it needs to stop. Nor has Yank done much of anything about it, either, which we both know is an effort. Basically, he's got an attitude in there for some reason, and I told him to drop it. Lordganon 09:00, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Lordganon has once again told me to stop this imaginary "attitude". This is no longer a situation of roleplaying but of clear bias. It doesn't matter if you think Venice is an "ass" or the fact that you seem to not want to adress Yanks consistant insults of other players. It matters that when it comes to the game no matter how much I keep my words inside the lines of good talk, you have a go at me, I didn't see this happen when me and the russian player where having problems in north america but when Yanks involved so it seems are you. As I have said before tell me what this "attitude" is and I can stop it but so far it just seems to be you having a problem with me. Kunarian 14:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

It's not imaginary. He, while dropping the "roleplaying" and assorted claims, has not dropped the attitude. And again, he's claiming a bias, which is still pretty amusing, given that it's Yank, someone who I freely admit annoys me, he's claiming I'm biased towards. As for the Russia thing, he does get a couple chances before I warn him, though I admit I should have warned Kun about that one, too. Lordganon 15:11, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Then why not ask him to check his attitude? is it that I'm on your watchlist or something? anyways I have stopped arguing so if anyone continues it will not be me. Kunarian 16:02, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yank has been civil. Simple. Lordganon 16:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree but in favour of being able to edit, I have made a request on Principia Moderni. Kunarian 16:28, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fx, the Nimitz, and Hawaii
''Note that at this time I have not read the post from today. And that I've been too busy to reply previously. So, if any of this is contradicted by that you'll have to beg my pardon.''

I'd suggest you read it again, but at this point, you're not able to think neutrally about me in any form, so I know full well there's no point. Based on that, quite frankly, you probably should not have even tried to mediate and let Brian do it. But, too late now. Have to say, mind, that the post on my page was nicer than I expected, so kudos there.

He did not indicate that he did not understand. He dismissed it, outright. I'm aware that it was probably not intentional, but he did it. And then ignored it when I called him on it.

I've no problem at all. Fx out and out said things, however intentional, that were insulting. And they were pretty obviously so. There's no problem with "interpreting people" here, except that FX failed to interpret an obvious point for several days. The reasons with "confrontations" are unique to every case. In this one, Fx and myself both got annoyed - immensely so - when we both were perceived as missing obvious points. I got his - after he actually made it, and you can obviously see where that was - but he failed to get mine, and got set off when I made it clear that I was getting exasperated.

He found the article on the former Nimitz, which as you noticed, despite having the word "Nimitz" on the page, doesn't show up in the search for some reason. His line about the NATO ships was wrong, and there was no harm - or so I thought - in pointing it out.

NATO ships would actually have been in the region. Not only are there French and British bases in the Indian, South Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans, but in all navies it is a fairly common practice to have warships out on goodwill voyages, especially for their maiden voyages. There will be some in the area. Not too many, but some. A good example of this is the voyage of the Vinson that was happening at that time. And, given the area where the Vinson would have originated - the East/South China Seas - it is likely that one or two of them would have joined it. Nor was it out of context, at all, for that line was referring to the Vinson, thus making it in context.

As stated to you more than once by this time, nothing was discounted, or even called not plausible. As I have explained, now for the third time, the Hawaii stuff is not necessary. And, for the record, those islands are in harms way.

The lines you bold, no matter the ending, insinuate that he is calling me an idiot. There is no doubt of this. And I'm sorry that you fail to see that. Don't care how he meant it, but that is what it is.

Unintentional does not equal no malice. Not in the least. Everyone says things that they do not mean to say that are still hateful and untrue - and a shrink would confirm that. That is slander. And thus, insult. False perceptions are more of the same. And, with the last part he is implying that I do not have one, and looking at the rest of the post makes that pretty obvious.

His posts and actions have shown to me that he was acting with malice. I figure that for the most part, it was unintentional. However, it was still there, and it was insulting on a few levels. The surface, as you so put it, is not as it seems, not at all.

Lordganon 08:27, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

If you will pardon me, I am going to refer to the above below. It is a little easier for me and it allows the remarks to be viewed in context. And so, here is my 'prepared' statement. I have attempted to answer the pertinent concerns I have based only on what you have written and not on any bias on my part to you as a person. As you point out, our past encounters make that impossible, but here goes:

You write: "Unintentional does not equal no malice. Not in the least. Everyone says things that they do not mean to say that are still hateful and untrue - and a shrink would confirm that. That is slander. And thus, insult. False perceptions are more of the same. And, with the last part he is implying that I do not have one, and looking at the rest of the post makes that pretty obvious."

First, here is the definition, both common usage and as a legal term (this time from a modern source):

mal·ice /ˈmælɪs/ noun 1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy. 2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malice

As much as you may have been hurt by perceived slights, if they were unintentional on the other party's part, then there is no malice. You cannot re-define your terms to suit your argument, for to do so destroys credibility. If someone continues to present the same opinion of you once he knows that it hurts you, then you have a case. Unintentional "malice" is impossible. Note that the insult need not be a lie; the malice is in the desire, and thus intent, to do harm.

You are right, sometimes people say things the don't mean to say. But it is practically impossible to say things one does not mean. Words mean things, and the intents of the heart will come out in what we say in unguarded moments. We speak before we think, actually, and thus say things we would not say after due consideration. However, the media in which we are communicating does not work quite that way. When someone writes a response it rarely is in the emotions of the moment. Even Fx's "offensive" paragraph was, as I pointed out, was in carefully constructed language. It is hard to 'unintentionally' construct such a paragraph.

Though something may be unintensionally untrue, the fact that it is untrue does not show hatefulness in the speaking of that erroroneous statement. How can it? And if there is no intent then the fact that one is mistaken is to be dealt with appropriately. And that should not be by taking offense.

I do not know how much psychology you have had in school. I assume that you had enough to be able to discern bias in the writers of history in order to better interpret the facts gleamed from said historians. However, as contemporary authors have done to 'textual criticism' of their works (where the critic trys to explain what he 'meant' when he wrote a passage), so a debate opponent can do to your arguments. You have absolutely no way to "know" what I mean when I place words on paper beyond the surface of the text.

A good writer will place qualifiers in a sentence to indicate doubt or opinion, and these are what you seem to be missing. These are the "IF's" and "Maybe's" and such scattered in such discussion. I am quite certain that you will never change your ways until you are forced by some action which I cannot, and do not wish to, carry out. It seems to me that no matter of words can convince you to consider that your perceptions may possibly be wrong in each of these situations in which you strike out at others.

Having said that, I will point out in closing that you seem to have missed my point in regards to "NATO" ships. The ships of member nations do not belong to NATO. The organization has no jurisdiction even in the Persian Gulf but went there by agreement with allies in the area (not member nations). Any ships in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are there representing their nations in some other relationship. Even on the good will trips, such as that of the Vinson, are on behalf of the nation whose flag the ship flies, and that has not been a NATO flag in any case that I have seen. NATO members are free to associate with other nations just as we as individuals are not kept from associating with other people outside of whatever organization(s) we may be a member.

I hope I included enough qualifiers above to indicate that I am not attempting to think for you in any way. It seems to me that you will hold tenaciously to your point of view, so as Fx pointed out earlier, there is no use to attempt to change that. When you write that you "don't care how he meant it, that is what it is" you show that this is so. I look forward to your response to the other post I made to you, but really, there is no need to respond to this one, for we have both made our points. SouthWriter 22:55, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Another lecture with no base to it, eh? How shocking.

It's called "subconsciously." As in, without noticing or actively doing, but doing it all the same. It is very possible to do malice unintentionally.

No, I got your point on the NATO ships. You, however, missed something: In the absence of national authorities, NATO forces are supposed to, and would, delegate themselves to the whomever is the senior commander of whatever allied units may be present in the area. And the orders they would have gotten between the launches and the EMP would have told them as such.

Lordganon 23:28, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

"Putting Words in Your Mouth?"
I'm amazed that you seem to think that qualifiers remove the nature of the post, but I guess I shouldn't be shocked since you think that adding "with all due respect" to something insulting erases that fact.

I admit, the word "whole" was an exaggeration. But, that does not change the fact that between his "apology" and his "offer" that it was condescending. You failed to notice what I was referring to.

And, quite obviously, I was aware of it days ago. And if he'd have bothered to pay attention he'd have noticed.

Sickness? You stuff words into my mouth like that at least every month, without reason. Damn right I'm sick of it. Sick and tired.

Displeased does not equal fear. Even you should know that. Annoyed would be the most accurate term to describe the whole matter.

As I said on the DD page...

''His "offer" was not condescending. Though, thanks for putting words into my mouth again. What was condescending was the rest of it.''

I never said that the offer was. Thus, you shoved words down my throat.

A "gentleman" as you so put it would not have been condescending or insulting as Fx was.

I have been showing restraint. For days, I have. But you never can acknowledge that, can you? Go figure. And, belligerence? What else do you expect when someone constantly, without grounds, lectures you, and someone else gets set off on you when they missed a point for days? Sheesh.

I do not have problems with differing opinions. What I do have a problem with, however, is when people spend days missing an obvious point, and then lash out about it. "May" or "Seem" has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I guess I do have a problem with what others "are saying" when they write. As in when they are condescending, or insulting. Even more so when they, when called on it, fail to notice that they had been so. Fx has failed multiple times to do so, or to even be apologetic about. I at least will do both. But, again, you never give any acknowledgement of that, either.

Lordganon 00:01, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Welcome Back
It's Good to hear from you South. Thanks for the compliment. That was one of those articles I had a lot of ideas that just never got around to getting written down. As for the next week off, I have a Monday and Friday off so I'm basically hopping from one weekend to the the other, I guess, lol. I'll be doing a lot of work over the holidays so I'll hopefully "clean up the huge mess" I made when I left, fleshing out articles, and putting the ones I can't handle up for adoption, I think you get the picture.

Anyways, I've hopped on a few times here and there and I did take notice of what you've done with the USAR and a couple of my other articles. All I can say is you did a great job on the USAR, that was a pretty unique and controversial project that unfortunately would have been one of the many, many "stubs" I left behind here if it wasn't for you. I definitely think that statehood is unlikely until the mainland gains some sort of sea access, but frequent contact and some sort of on-paper relatonship whatsoever is a definite yes. I was brainstorming of what to do with California, which is definitely a state I'd like to reenter the Union as I was discussing with LG earlier. Since the United States seems to be under your wing, I was wondering how we'd go about with this. I also think that Florida is a possibility, I do think that it would definitely be influenced by the USAR more than the USA itself, though.

I really want to work on a project if you've got any ideas on the whole Americanosphere or anything in general I'm here. It's good to be back :) Arstar 05:48, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

PS: Do you want to communicate on your talk page or mine? I like keeping the conversation in one place


 * I'm with you on keeping the conversations in one place. I am going to have to put things in motion with the Dakotas (a project between Zack and me) which probably should have been added as a state long ago. Zack also feels that Kentucky definitely should be on track to become part of the USA. I am not sure where all the resistance to distance and lack of shoreline have much to do with rejoining the Union. Alaska and Hawaii were territories far separated from the US when they were acquired. Even as states they are remote - each in their own way. But that does seem to be the consensus. Right now, rejoining the US will be like joining the League of Nations. Exchange of officials, radio contact, that sort of thing. The present USA is not into centralized government as such, but in unity among Americans. Any states that want to remain the way they are will do so.


 * Hey, I started to go to bed an hour ago. I'll check back with you later. SouthWriter 07:21, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

The Dakotas are definitely something that need to be updated as already having happened. They've been a pretty underutilized project since the beginning, I mean we had two surviving state capitals that Zack just left there. You remember what we did with the Saguenay War rewrite? Do you think we could do a similar thing with the US/USAR/Surrounding States? I've always been a "loyalist" you could say to the ATL US, and statehood is something I want all my countries to achieve except for Niagara Falls and maybe Superior.

Also, I'm running it by you but I did a minorly rewrite/reorganize on certain parts of the USAR page, nothing big, but theres two seperate entries condtradicting themselves about when Navassa Island was settled and why. I think the native goats becoming extinct and the seagulls part should go the other way around, as goats are much, much more convenient than cattle on a small island like that and would likely be domesticated. I remember reading something about how London in OTL is getting rid of their pidgeon problem by making large nest-cages and replacing the eggs with decoys which has caused a large decreasAnyways e in their population. I think the same thing would be done with Navassa, but, then again, maybe they'll farm Pidgeon's too (just kidding). Arstar 18:27, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you took the mention of New Lulu Town out, though you left it in the info box. What's with that?  I remember working on the concept for quite some time and now the one line we agreed upon is taken out.  I thought it was a stretch to start with, but after adding a desalinaton plant the town and island might become independent enough that Jamaica doesn't have to support them.  And I wrote out the goats because they were king on the island because they eat the desert grass and other sparse vegetation.  I figured that with the USAR reclaiming the island the goats would lose out.  It was a throw away line and I'm sure that the goats could be demesticated just fine.  With the building of the town, I figured the sustenance living would be a thing of the past.  The military town there would probably import most of its food (and until the desalination plant, the water) from Jamaica.  The guano would serve as their 'currency.'  And without the birds, the guano would not be replenished.  SouthWriter 04:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

The metion of New Lulu Town? That was because I could've sworn It was written in there twice. It looks like I should've gone to bed earlier that day that's not the only thing I messed up. Anyways, I think that the goats would actually be not only viable for survival but possibly exported to the main islands because they are a convenient source of inexpesive livestock compared to cows which would be difficult to maintain on the overpopulated islands. Anyways, I can't believe I overlooked the pidgeon-guano connection. Like I said I was sleep-deprived over the course of the entire weekend so I must have not been thinking well. But I guess the pidgeons would definitely remain, and the goats might be demoted to the animals that the lower-class farmers use to make inexpensive milks/cheese/butters etc. Arstar 01:24, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Can I Get Your Thoughts
Hi South, when you get a chance I would appreciate your input regarding a discussion we are having dealing with Iceland on the main discussion page. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 04:17, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Presidents of US (CNS)
Hi South, how are you? :) I hope fine. I would like to know your opinion about the US presidents in my timeline Chile No Socialista in the spanish wikia. As the timeline is principally focused in Chile and South America, the situation in the rest of the world seems to be the same like OTL... at least for the moment. I have been tried to find some plausible changes in the case of US presidents (even recently i have seen the assesination attempts just for give me an idea). By now, the options are put the same presidents like OTL, or maybe Ronald Reagan in 1977 (another previous idea was Kennedy in 1981 but i'm unsure about). As said before, the POD seems to be affect only to this part of the continent and the only important event that could affect other sides is the South Amrican War in 1978. Can you help with any opinion? Thanks and Regards! --Katholico 04:28, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am doing well, thank you. I don't think a change in government in Chile would make much of a difference in America unless the US government got pulled into an upopular war down there, shifting the politics in America. So, if you can work a Viet Nam type of war in the mountains of Chile that would strenghten Carter enough to beat Reagan, then I'd say go for it. Or, if the war can begin while Ford is president, he might even beat Carter. This might have interesting results in the world in and of itself. It is possible that Carter's handling of the war would mean Edward Kennedy could get the nomination in 1976, but Kennedy would have less of a chance against Reagan than would Carter. Without the war in Chile involving the US before 1976, there would be no way to change the loss to Ford in the primaries that year. Feliz Navidad! SouthWriter 04:55, December 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Well, the only event like Vietnam might be the Revolution of 1977, when finally the armed far-left groups attempt to reach the power by force, with support from the URSS and Cuba, but they fail absolutely. But this take place between March and April that year.
 * Before that, however, i had thought about the possibility of a war only between Chile and Peru (ruled by the socialist military Juan Velasco Alvarado) about 1974-1975, maybe begun by Peru with excuse of a guerrilla incident. In this case...

I just read up on Ford and in the time frame to which you refer the US was in the process of handling the withdrawal from Viet Nam - including 'shows of force' as North Viet Nam continued its aggression. It is possible, then that a refusal to commit to supporting Chile may have been enough to sway voters to go for Reagan over Ford. With an earlier Reagan, world history may have changed dramatically. I'd say the presidents would be: By taking George H.W. Bush out of the line-up, George W. Bush doesn't enter the picture. This puts Bob Dole up against a weak Jimmy Carter. John McCain replaces George W. Bush and leaves a legacy that makes Huckabee strong in 2008. I admit I was a Huckabee supporter, but with McCain our of the picture, it would be Huckabee in 2008! Sorry, a little bit of politicking going on. Of course, I have just presented a time line that is possible even without your scenario! Thanks, I'll use this line-up to create a time-line of my own.
 * if Ford support firmly to Chile, he would get the reelection?
 * or if he does not do it, or if is doubtful, maybe Reagan won the nomination and won the election is 1976? Just ideas that i thought now. Regards! --Katholico 05:39, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ronald Reagan - 1977-1985
 * Jimmy Carter - 1985-1989
 * Bob Dole - 1989-1993
 * Bill Clinton - 1993-2001
 * John McCain - 2001-2009
 * Mike Huckabee - 2009-

Well, I've got to get some sleep. Buenos Noches. SouthWriter 07:11, December 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem South, i'm glad that this idea could be useful for you :D
 * Really thanks you, the list seems to me very well :) Maybe the only thing is about the possibility to see to Ted Kennedy at some point as President, but just was an idea. Still, i need to advance more into the time line for analyze the effects that all this could cause in Middle East, Asia, Central America and Europe (Iran hostage, gulf war, cuba, afganistan etc)... Regards! --Katholico 19:34, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want Ted Kennedy, I suppose he would fit where Jimmy Carter is, since it was against Carter that he first attempted to get the nomination. Perhaps with Reagan winning the first time against Carter, Kennedy would fare better against Carter the second time, and thus beats George H.W. Bush in 1984. It is just as possible that George Bush would win in 1984 as he did in our time line in 1988, but for some reason, I liked Carter over Bush in my alternate list of presidents. Bob Dole was the best I could come up with for 1988, really, and figured the minority leader could beat Carter anyway. Of the list, the only primary choices I voted for are Reagan and Huckabee. That means I don't particularly like McClain or Dole, but I voted for them in the general election.

Without the Iran hostage crisis against him, in fact, Carter may have succeeded in the 1980's. I am not so sure Kennedy would have won a second term in the 1980's though. If you have him in the queue, then it's Reagan-Kennedy-Clinton-McCain-Huckabee. Yes, I believe Huckabee could have beaten B.H. Obama OR Hilary Clinton- but that's just me. :-)

Until next time, Adios. SouthWriter 20:52, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Best Copy-editor nomination
Last year, it primarily - or so I've gathered, anyways - meant ensuring categories were attached, and that spelling/grammar were fixed where possible. I also do more things with formatting problems than with sp/gramm, too. Also have to fix the spelling of a lot of categories too, lol.

Most of the time, if I notice something while adding these things, I'll fix them.

Off hand, I've fixed some things for Owner and Imp this year, I think. Some of Arstar's articles, and a few long-standing DD proposals, too. Definitely the India articles in DD, and the main/news pages, along with likely a few more DD articles. Heck, I think I've done a bit of BSE and Ven's works, too, but don't quote me on it. Past that, no clue off the top of my head.

Really, South, I can honestly say that I've done some. Problem is, I really can't say where, lol. The lists of edits I've done this year are just too big to go through, as you said. Went back a couple of months before I quit, and that took like 15 pages of 500 edits each, lol

Past that....

I like to think that I am pretty decent, maybe good, at going over things for errors. After a certain point with writing papers, you get pretty used to doing it for your own and for other people's, lol.

If you ever need/want something like that done, all you have to do is ask. Be far from the only person that I'm told that to, lol. As you say, a second pair of eyes can work wonders. We all make odd turns of phrase that only someone else can notice, you know?

Lordganon 09:28, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

A Different Floyd
Hi I would like to talk to you about your recent edit on A Different Floyd, I would like to tell you your categorization of the articles are incorrect, This alternate history is not just about Pink Floyd, but about Music in general. Vidboy10 02:29, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to 'talk' then you should have waited for me to respond. What you have here is a monlogue. It was your article, and you corrected my mistake. I put in the remark that I was attempting to remove the page from being an "orphan" by providing lengths to its related articles. The most recent cache of orphan pages does not include A Different Floyd, so the links you had in it must have been added after it was cached. I was merely doing my duty trying to help an orphan out.

If the articles about other bands are in no way associated with Pink Floyd, then how can they be said to be affected by the point of divergence. If they are associated in some way, then you need to show this in the articles. I would suggest that you build on the premise of the band being indeed different with Waters in control rather than being at odds with it for decades while working solo as he did. Otherwise, find a point of divergence that might change the outlook of many different bands. A time line with multiple points of divergence is hard to keep coherent.

Again, I am sorry to disturb your article with an inaccurate labeling of the links. I should have read the linked articles to find some connection to the original gateway article instead of assuming they were 'albums.' It was an honest mistake. SouthWriter 06:29, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cuban colony
I like it, there should be more articles regarding the subject, seeing as how the Cubans have a whopping number of camps in the U.S. ( 67, although I'm not even sure any more who wrote that into Mitro's original article, if it was me or someone else). That said, I'm not even sure if there should be one specific article regarding all these camps or just a couple of them regarding the bigger ones, like what you have outlined.

Regarding the pictures, I kind of like the second one better. Is nominating pictures for the Awards an either/or matter or can one user nominate two pictures?Vladivostok 08:58, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope you had a Merry Christmas as well of course.--Vladivostok 09:01, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * That number of "camps" seems excessive, but given that there were a lot of Navy bases along the coast, I guess we can live with it. I suppose many of the camps could be temporary and disappear after the expeditions are complete.


 * I think nominating one is the proper proceedure. By the "second one" I assume you mean the bombed out Savannah (second one on the page). I actually made that one first. Puerto de Savannah was easier, but I think it was a bit more realistic. But go with the one you like best. However, don't do it because I asked you to. If you want to nominate some older pictures someone else did, or vote for the one I have posted as the one 'best' that I was allowed from my own portfolio, feel free. I just knew that having created them in my free time, in the course of this discussion, these would have a very short time for eligibility and would not be seen by many people before being posted on the wiki. SouthWriter 18:26, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Of course I know I don't have to nominate the bombed out Savannah image, but I do like it so I will.

And as far as I'm concerned, you should definitely make the Savannah article a proposal, unless you you're waiting for Brian of course.--Vladivostok 09:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Re:International Dateline
I like the idea of them trying to incorporate their acquisitions in Alaska even more by making the DMZ the new international date line, it ads a bit more character to the country. By all means, feel free to write about it on the news feed.--Vladivostok 11:43, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I understand you are good with maps...
The "experts" page has you under map making and I am wondering what software you recommend? I have had little luck with GIMP but I have seen some masterful maps made with it.Willbell123 01:24, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

I use good MS Paint. I have GIMP, but haven't learned to use it yet. What I start out with is a blank black and white US map (or other nation if its available) with only boundaries of political units added. US county maps are good for filling in spaces with color. If you want less definition, go with less outlined. I did a lot of work on 1983DD maps in the US this way. I haven't worked much on anything else in the way of maps. SouthWriter 04:16, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

United States and Surrounding Nations
Hey South do you remember a month back the conversation we had on the expansion of the new United States? I was wondering if you are still interested in doing that project as I have an idea for a rough outline of events for that idea. Let me know. Arstar 20:47, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I like the enthusiasm! And for future reference I try to keep things "in line" but since you don't get a message when you reply to someone's comment on your own talkpage I sometimes go back and forth but for future reference, keep it in line preferably, no big deal if not.

Anyways I've been reading up on one of the authors named God Bless The United States of America, a.k.a. "GB" who sprouted up while I was gone. Obviously you know him as I've seen from archived conversations, but while he seemed enthusiastic on reunifying the United States the whole "American Spring" movement never really accomplished anything. While I don't have a whole lot of time to write something as I might go out with some friends in a few minutes I'll give you the basics I have in mind:

After the Saguenay War several of the American survivor states feel a sense of pride after showing they still have the ability to fight together. I'm thinking we should execute this like the Saguenay re-write was where we write these events into the immediate past and still unfolding in the present. Here is a rough outline I have:


 * Following contact with the Atlantic Remnant the mainland is inspired that in the most obscure American territory a semblance of legitimacy has yet to be claimed by Doomsday. This bolsters the American spirit even further.


 * Continued friction with the Republic of Lincoln causes both the State of Kansas and Lincoln's rivalry to increase further, building up so much pride on each side that the only other place you could see such pride is with opposing teams at a pre-War college football game.


 * The "adrenaline boost" in the Midwest causes some Dakotanites to ally with the Americans. Soon afterwords, the Dakotas apply for statehood. I haven't thought of the chain of events that lead to this, but I don't see why they didn't join earlier.


 * Cascadia is another potential state, as "loyalists" from within the country argue that a reunification would help both the US and Cascadia.


 * Further reclamation occurs in Colorado. This is somewhat unrelated to the protests and not necessary but since the state wasnt too heavily damaged I don't see why not.

The Oaklahoma city-states form the Oaklahoma Coalition (tentative name).
 * A counter movement occurs with Lincoln. After setting up very small puppet states in Nebraska small towns it convinces the Quad Cities Alliance to not join the USA. This begins a scramble for the Missisippi River border-states.
 * The movement spreads eastward. A couple months after the Dakota annexation the USA sets up the Minnesota territory which is met by much flack from Superior. Republic of Wisconsin also begins expanding but does not join anyone.


 * A duplicate movement occurs in Canada to a lesser extent mostly among the United Communities Canadian states.


 * Another duplicate movement forms in the South, where it is up to you to see whether the CSA is reformed, or the USA is.


 * The CRUSA and some of the more "Tea Party"-like members of the ATL petition to Victoria to handover the American possessions they have.


 * Oregon Free State is split on what to do. Due to its more Democratic nature it may decline but towards the eastern parts bordering with the NAU there may be more support.

This is part one of the "American Spring" and at the Petition for Washington directly above, this is where it should "spill" into the present day, January 2012.

What are your thoughts? Obviously we will need the approval of a lot of other people but most of these nations are just sitting here. This project could jumpstart the community if it generates enough buzz I think :-) Arstar 00:48, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you prefer 'in line' discussion. Scrolling up, or "cut and paste" for context just seems like too much work for me. It seems that I have also put myself in a pinch and will be leaving in a few minute (heading to church), so here are just a few remarks regarding the above.


 * I'm thinking that Dakotan statehood is probably completed (ratified in November) and needs to be written into the mix.
 * I think you mean the state of Nebraska, with Lincoln establishing states in Iowa (Kansas and Missouri too!).
 * I am in total agreement about the euphoria that might arise finding out that some Americans did not simply give up on the USA after Doomsday. The USAR can certainly be an inspiration.
 * Well, I've got to go. I'll return with more thoughts either later tonight or sometimes tomorrow. SouthWriter 22:44, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Alright so far so good. The only question I have is will the Dakota's be split into to, or remain the same, and how about the "Minnesota Territory" idea? Arstar 04:09, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Given their loss of territory to the Lakota and Assiniboia, I'd say the Dakotas will stay together. I figure they might as well keep the name Dakota, though they may consider going by "the Dakotas" as a testimony to the past. I don't see the USA or the Dakotas seeking to annex "unclaimed" territory. The way I see it, the USA will seek the closest thing to actual successor states and work with them. Only after they have negotiated with the nation-states that decline the offer to join will unclaimed territory be "up for grabs."


 * I have prepared a map showing what I think the present boundaries of Lincoln are, assuming control of Republic_of_Lincoln_2011.png 'states' across its borders into Iowa, Missouri and Kansas. The republic effectively controls the traffic up and down the Missouri River but has no say what happens on the Mississippi north of the junction in what is Kentucky territory. These "puppet states," as you call them, would pose a problem to the CRUSA, and perhaps to the USA as well, because they constitute expansion across old state lines. However, if the states are considered independent by law then they become negotiable. Dakota is still colored separately, but should be considered part of the USA in this map.


 * I hope this helps in determining the nature of the borders of Lincoln. I would prefer that Lincoln be in the southern portion of the state south of the Platte River, but that cuts Nebraska off from Kansas. The map also does not show reclaimed Colorado west of Kansas. I agree that Colorado east of the blast zones in the center of the state ought to have been settled by now. If we grant sufficient settlement of eastern Colorado, then Kansas would not be cut off and Lincoln could be granted the land south of the river while relinquishing a few more counties in the north. SouthWriter 22:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Why don't we use one of the tributaries of the Platte so the state is roughly divided in half but at a more geographically likely way?

Anyways here's up a map for Colorado which will show what I think the boundaries should be. While I am trying to avoid them having any control near Denver this is what I've come up with so far. . So should we go ahead with writing the Dakota annexation? That's the stepping stone for the whole idea so we should get on it once we've gotten clearance from whoever else was involved in that. Arstar 00:16, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

On Lincoln, I would love to negotiate with Yank to move the boundaries to the geographic southern half of the state. However, so far, he has it in his mind that the Republic would have developed in the east, including settling some of Iowa. I added the idea of Missouri and Kansas as a necessary corralary to crossing state lines. As for Colorado, I can see the expansion going all the way down the eastern border, thus affording a continuation of the US without interruption into Kansas.

The other editor working on the Dakotas is Zack. He asked me to help and I got together a map and a flag. That's about as far as it got, really. I agree that is the next step. SouthWriter 05:08, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

So I am going to talk to Yank today about the border swap, but in the mean time we should start with writing the Dakotas. I will take care of the Colorado expansion, but since your the caretaker of the US apparently do you want me to write it in, yourself, or both of us? Arstar 19:52, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I figure you can do a good job on it all by yourself. I see that the expansion section was yours anyway, so expanding that section will be your task. It is strange that we haven't done anything on that page in over a year as it is. The miniscule "expansion" that had occurred by that time (Nov. 5, 2010) seems a bit of an underachievement given the time-span of over 25 years. You list a rebuilt town of "377 ... and growing." Wow, what a pioneering spirit [sarcasm]! With Ft. Collins as the biggest city in the nation, I'd say that just the population from that city alone would provide more than 377 when given the chance to resettle.


 * I think also that the expansion down the eastern part of the state will be necessary to keep Kansas from being cut off from the US when and if Lincoln is allowed to expand west along the Platte. SouthWriter 21:37, January 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys need to have a look at maps of both Utah and the Navajo Nation. That Colorado map, while a step in the right direction, can't work. Lordganon 10:09, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the story line and the rough maps available to reconstruct the probable boundaries of "Utah" (better known as Deseret). I used OTL population maps for the year 2000 to propose the approximate boundaries based mostly on OTL county lines. I guessed on Dineteh's boundaries in Utah and Colorado as well.

The Utah page needs to make it plainer as to how and why survivors along I-15 would have traveled down I-70 all the way to the Eisenhower tunnel to "protect" themselves from refugees from Denver. Aside from the survivors that took refuge in (or just happened to be escaping via) the tunnel, most refugees from Denver would have ended up in Ft. Collins anyway. The early development of the Utah/Deseret article seems a little implausible when it comes to its eastern borders and probably needs to go up for review. It was created by Louisiannan whose last contribution was a little over a year ago (17 months as far as the Utah article is concerned), so it may be "up for adoption" if we make any significant adjustments. What do you think? SouthWriter 03:23, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some adjustments need to me made to Utah since 17 months ago since as far as the community is concerned the way articles were written back then is nothing but a forgotten era. And as a lot of our original members are gone, leaving their articles in the dust, we should help bring it up to date with whats happening now. LG's map is slightly overexaggerating Deseret's control and is definitely inaccurate in Dinetah and I even stated above that my map was approximate but at the end of the day I think Colorado's border would be adjacent to Dinetah's and Deseret/Utah's borders, since an area as heavily populated as this would likely have no more "no-mans land" between the three states.

Before we fray from the topic it is the eastern border we are concerned about not the western one. Colorado will expand to the south until it reaches the Purgatoire River and then any future growth will primarily occur in the center of the state. I'll have to write up the summary today and flesh it out towards Thursday-Friday but I'll see to it that I get something done today.

PS: I was wondering if I could upload a new map for the United States article, one which is more "editable" than the current one. Do you want me to add it now or let you deal with the map? Either way the format can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Blank_US_Map.svg/200px-Blank_US_Map.svg.png

Arstar 00:27, January 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Please look at more maps, Arstar, before acting like that. The boundaries for the two states on mine are taken off of several older maps, and are wholly accurate. And it is already right next to each other. Apologies for this note, South. Lordganon 02:20, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Apalachicola
I know that some of the communities I added do not exist. They are communities built in the forest itself to house the various refugees from the rest of florida and the neighboring states. I named one "New Athens" because of the failed survivor state in Georgia. I named one "Libertyville" because it sounded like a good old-fashioned American name. I named the last one "New Hooverville" because, as a shantytown, it is litterally a new "Hooverville". All it would take for it to be named that is for one resident to have a book on the great depression. The Apalachicolans have all that space in the forest, and would naturally gain refugees so why couldn't they use some land to house the refugees? This is the orginial idea I had when I created Apalachicola, a nation of refugees living in the forest like New Mongomery (minus the racism).

Yank 23:24, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I figured. It looks like Arstar accidently knocked out your post so I restored it for you! Anyway. The choices work okay, and I think I will work in some of them. New towns in the forest would certainly spring up for a while. If you haven't checked already, I put the idea in the article. There will be an independent nation-state of Apalachicola, but it will dissolve in favor of statehood in the Republic of Florida in the recent past. Most of your idea can be incorporated in the history section. If the story line is too long, we can make a new article to which to link.

Like I said when I adopted the article, I am from those parts and I kind of know how those folk think. I changed the present leadership to the present mayor of Apalachicola and my cousin who lives near Wewahitchka. Since the capital is in an establised town, the makeshift settlements are an artifact of history. I produced an artifact by merging a house or two into an actual photo of the forest. Let me know your ideas on the development of the independent state and I will try to honor the intent of your original article. SouthWriter 05:26, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

U.S. States formation (PP)
Hi South, how are you? I hope fine. :) I'm working in my timeline Presidente Portales, and i'm thinking that as in the TL there is not Texas and California, so, the efforts to populate moved to the northwest, leading to the early creation of some states or territories. Here is the ideas that i have:


 * Kansas in 1851 (as territory) and 1858 (as state).
 * Nebraska in 1851 (as territory) and 1864 (as state).
 * Minnesota in 1854 as state.
 * Dakota Territory in 1857.
 * Montana Territory (including Wyoming) in 1861.

I want tou your opinion about this. Thanks. Regards! --Katholico 19:06, January 17, 2012 (UTC)