User talk:SouthWriter



Where's my flag?
Thank you for expediting my gradation.--SouthWriter 22:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

My flag is not showing up in the data base. I just tagged it to go there by putting the "flags" category on it. How do I get it over into the data file? --SouthWriter 22:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Also, do I have to run related articles (support articles, such as news clips, diary and journal entries, and articles on the people mentioned) through the "Proposal" process? --SouthWriter 22:15, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

i would recommend it. HAD 16:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to speed it up, just ask for your article to be graduated on the main talk page. Mitro 00:23, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Try this man
I made like this awesome forum: Forum:Lovian Communist Party. I hope some people will see it and go and watch the site, Lovia, and join the LCP (communist party) to expand its power and influence. Lovia (wikination) is a fictional wikination which is very active with many users. Go see that forum! Thanks in advance, Dr. Magnus 18:58, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I assure you its a cool site. Go check out the forum, click the link, visit wikination and join the LCP by adding your name in the list of members. Take care and have fun! Dr. Magnus 18:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

New Montgomery and bias
how about creating a bio on the white racist in charge of New Montgomery? Also, you can mention things like genocide and atrocities on bio's, just be objective about it. HAD 20:12, January 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am not at all comfortable with the assumption that these racist gangs could rise up and be as effective as the creators of this timeline think it they would. I created the one Black Muslim in response to the already "established" black supremacist city-state in the city of Anderson. In creating a character, I was at liberty to make him as evil as I wanted. However, in creating a bio, I sought to present him in a way as if he were still alive and in control of the information coming out of Anderson. When I switched to the imagined divergent life of a real person, though, I moderated the character to reflect what he is in our own world (where he can't get away with atrocities even if he wanted to).


 * If I create a white supremacist, it will be for the city-state of Toccoa, CSA, a nearby state to my own. I have some knowledge of the area (having graduated from the University of Georgia). But if I had my preferences, I would have desstoyed the separatist and racist regimes long ago, for living in a free state next to them is not a pleasant place to be.SouthWriter 19:52, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout Maps
Hey, South - out of curiousity, where have you gotten the fallout rates for the bombs? Are they just generalized, or are they based on specific facts? Louisiannan 18:53, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The final "product" assumes the same size bombs, and a generalized radius of about 35 miles. The direction and dispersal on the final maps (the Google maps with the "targets" is based on the Bikini Atoll dispersal (I found it on wikipedia, I think). The result comes close to the original fallout maps on this wiki. I have a lot of time on my hand but not that much!SouthWriter 19:39, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits on Piedmont page
You may want to check out the recent edits on the Piedmont page by an anonymous user. BrianD 01:31, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I made those changes. For some reason I had been knocked offline and did not realize it. I think it was because I left it unattended in edit mode for too long, I decided to change the government back to the way it has always been. In the four counties now in the republic, there are 25 districts that sent Representatives to Columbia, and 12 that sent Senators. Those 37 legislatures, working in the way they always have, is a lot better than changing horses in mid-stream. I had tried to be "too creative."

The other edit, that I finished after realizing I needed to log in. Was something I came up with over the weekend. At first I was just going to have a simple "mining expedition to drain trapped fuel out of the pipes. I then followed a logical train of thought to a frightening conclusion. I may have just killed off a representative and senator in 1988 (right before the primaries, too!) -- a thought worth looking into. I haven't mapped the destruction completely, and that district is a bit jerrymandered if I remember correctly. By the way, it was unmentioned, but assumed "voting irregularities" in that district that put Democratic senator Elizabeth Patterson into the Governor's mansion in 1992. I just love it when the story "writes itself."SouthWriter 03:53, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * So do I. BrianD 04:28, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, any hints on how to find Bob Jones, IV, these days? I haven't seen anything about him later than a mention on him in 2008 as a "writer," who did not become president of the university that bears his name (or the other way around!). He used to write for World Magazine, but he's disappeared from sight (not good for a writer in this information age). I probably still have a few strings I could pull at the university (my daughter is still a respected alumnus at least), but I don't know how far that would get me.SouthWriter 05:07, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * For this, I generally start with Google, then look at more serious sources (newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, etc.) on line. This guy doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Perhaps he wants to be totally out of the public eye? BrianD 05:56, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I could go back through his work with World and build a decent alternate history, but I can't even give him an exact birthday! He was/is a good writer, and even worked as a regional editor for World. But then, he disappeared. I think you are probably right, he got unwanted flack for just being named "Bob Jones" and being a conservative commentator. I wouldn't be surprised if he is not writing under an assumed name somewhere. I think I'll try just "R.R. Jones" and then go with whatever I have so far. I've introduced him in the timeline, so I just now have to build his career.SouthWriter 06:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Two Americas
I just wanted to let you know that I have just read your comment on Two Americas. I'm happy that you like the basic idea. Going through your comments, I see what you mean, and now I am puzzled. As the name suggests, I want a timeline where there are two Americas, but now I am getting conflicted from my thoughts and your thoughts. I could simply ignore your comments and continue on with mine, but I can't after hearing your thoughts. Maybe you can help me out more with this. —User:NuclearVacuum


 * I just rewrote the introduction to my timeline. I based it roughly on your idea. Please tell me what you think of it so far. —User:NuclearVacuum


 * I like what you decided about WW2 in Europe, assuming that Britain would not have needed American to beat Hitler's Germany. I don't think that the CSA would necessarily side with Hitler, though, even if remaining "neutral." But then, I don't agree that the CSA would hold on to African slaves into the twentieth century either. There are about as many bigots in the north as the south who have abhorent views of anyone of non-Anglo heritage. And in neither region is it by any means a large enough majority to support the likes of either slavery or the genicide andexpansionism of Hitler.


 * Instead of slavery, perhaps a sort of apartheid -- a two-class system just a little worse than the one in OTL until the 1970's -- developed out of slavery. This would be more in-line with the developing industrial complex in both the north and the south. The really dirty and dangerous jobs would go to the African-Americans, who would also suffer from the same "separate, and not quite equal" standards of the early nineteenth century. The world held South Africa in disdain for the same type of class system.


 * There might even be a butterfly effect in keeping the USA out of WW2 as well. The USA by itself may not have been strong enough in international affairs to provoke the Japanese as they did in OTL. The way I read history, the "Boxer Rebellion" in China involved the USA in the affairs of the region on the strength of its performance in the Phillipines in the war of 1898. What if the USA had enough problems back home and stayed out of the mess in Asia. Then came the first World War, in which empires clashed in Europe and in their colonies around the world. In that war, president Wilson wanted to stay our of it but was pressured by still political powerful Theodore Roosevelt. In the ALT, Roosevelt was the president of the USA while Wilson was president of the CSA. Consequently, the USA would have joined the war far sooner, turning the tide in WW1 to such a degree that perhaps the peace treaty supported by Wilson (in OTL) would have worked.


 * Then, Hitler may have been less of a threat since conditions in Germany may have turned as bad. He was a madman, though, and he would have got Germany in another war anyway! As Japan began to expand, though, the USA may not have been a threat. Japan attacked the US forces precisely because they were moved into positions in Hawai'i and the Phillipines in order to mount a defense of interests in Asia. If FDR had not put the forces there, Japan would probably have left Hawai'i alone. An attack on the Phillipines, also a territory of the USA, may have been enough on it's own to invoke a war. If so, maybe the USA could have collect the favor earned in the Spanish-American War, and made quick work of stopping the Japanese in the Pacific War.


 * Well, enough for now. I hope this helps.SouthWriter 22:21, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Piedmont page
A brand-new user has added some content to the Piedmont page: here's the edit. I didn't want to revert or meddle with it without knowing the situation, so I thought I'd just alert you. Benkarnell 03:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

South, this has happened to me before; don't feel obligated to roll with any "suggested" changes to your canon. BrianD 03:42, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Americana Games
I took inspiration from the Europa Games being held in Prussia in October. It is supposed to be a subtle way of acknowleging the fact that every single state was born from the territory of the United States of America.That and the fact that the opening ceremony takes place of the Fourth of July.

Yankovic270 16:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. So perhaps the American expatriots in Mexico will not be invited to participate. Either way, I hope to get a team from Piedmont and Lincoln (n. Idaho) to the games. If you want, also, you are welcome to offer suggestions on this talk page for how history unfolds in the Piedmont Republic. I have gotten distracted reading everybody else's pages that I haven't been very creative here at home. Any suggestions in getting Lincoln through the "warlord" stage would be helpful as well.

Outer Banks
I didn't really work on that article. I'd suggest bringing up the population figures on that article's talk page or the main TL talk page. Mitro 22:59, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson
How do you know that Jackson isn't a dictatorship? You don't, because not a word has been written on them so far. When it is written, it'll be my version of events. Face it. When it comes to the former southern United States. Kentucky and Virginia have the lion's share of the power.

Yankovic270 21:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, history is written by the winner. :-) However, as I have shown in my dealing with the history of Anderson, we need not have a biased account just to show how "great" we are. History does, indeed, have more than one point of view.


 * I am just not sure I like the way you have taken my neighbors to the north. I am pretty sure I am going to have to push for an alliance among the weaker nations to demonstrate to the ANZC that the former US states are not a danger to world peace as we know it. My next segment of the Piedmont article, I think, will be their finding the ruins of what had been a "promising" survivor community in southeast South Carolina. Having fought a war with a neighbor, the hope to find friendlier neighbors to the southeast, only to find ruins left by a Category 5 hurricane in 1989. Some communities face dictators, others something a lot worse! SouthWriter 22:20, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the history books are always written with a bias. The winners want their story told, not the loser's. And the history books never stay unbiased when it comes to dictatorships, especially losing dictatorships. Yankovic270 22:28, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. "History" books are going to pick and choose. News reports are the same way a lot of times. However, that does not preclude an honest researcher from presenting both sides. In fact, that's what makes investigative reporting intreresting - even though the reporter's own bias usually gets in the way anyway. Though this wiki is not strictly "wikipedia," as a co-operative work it must at least attempt to show some semblance of balance in its reporting. If you haven't already, check out what I wrote on the main talk page. I think I found a sequence of events that could have arisen to a dictatorship in Jackson. SouthWriter 23:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Retroactive changes to the timeline
South, I've been thinking about the points you've made in the past several weeks, regarding rewriting portions of the timeline to make things more realistic. I resisted at first (as I'm sure you could tell!) but I was reminded recently that it's good to not dismiss such proposals out of hand. If an idea is good, and plausible, and workable, then the editors here should at least hear it out, and be open to new proposals and/or changes to older ones.

That said, I'm not opposed to reworking canon, specifically rewriting Blue Ridge/Tennessee/WCRB articles to retroactively reflect Piedmont, perhaps going back as far back as the late 1980s (we could talk about that more on our respective talk pages; that would have to be approved by the editors here, in so far as it affects the rest of the timeline, but I wouldn't see approval as a problem). As far as other issues you've raised in regards to the timeline: if it was I making these proposals, I would start the conversation by raising my points on the main 1983:Doomsday talk page, and explain what I think needs to be changed, and why. Once I did so, then see where the conversation goes....and, because of the collaborative nature of the wiki, be prepared for the probability that not all of my proposals will stick, and be willing to give and take on some of them. BrianD 19:12, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thompson
If you had had the sense to actually read the article, you would know that the figure I used was James E. Thompson, the commander of the 101st Airborne at the time. He is not some guy I made up off the top of my head. Please do more research before you critizize my work again. (Especially my crowning achievement the Virginian Republic.) And if you make it more constructive I would actually listen to you.

Yankovic270 23:18, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity=">I apologize for doubting you. The problem is, the picture that you chose is NOT the James E. Thomspon to which the link on the 101st Airborne's wikipedia article leads. The editors of that page apparently made an internal link to wikipedia article to a man by that name. When I researched "James Thompson" the list of names was quite long, so I did a search for James E. Thompson and got to the only article in wikipedia about a "James E. Thompson." If you had read that article, you would have at least not used his picture. That was what threw me off. It was your attitude that made me look up James E. Thomspon, and when I saw the very picture that you posted, I naturally read the article. I would have looked further for a general Thompson if I had not seen that picture. I should have known you wouldn't make up someone. SouthWriter 02:06, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Wanna help?
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I have been very busy for the past few weeks, and all my attention is centered around my other timeline. I was wondering if you would be interested in being an "admin" for the TwoAm timeline. I have confidence that you will be a perfect writer for it. Are you interested? —NuclearVacuum 20:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Sure, I can work on it a little. I will start by finishing my suggestions for presidents of the CS. I appreciate your adoption of my nominees so far. I'm thinking, though, that we might want to go with multiple parties in the CSA, especially in the period since WW2.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Choices of the lineup of presidents, though, will certainly effect world politics to an extent. I think that our present course of two Americas marching in agreement internationally should continue, however. It makes it easier to judge the direction of the ALT if we stick close to OTL whenever possible.SouthWriter 23:30, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">State College
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">South your my population expert, what do you think would be a reasonable population level for State College PA? --GOPZACK 19:28, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Hard to say. In OTL the town is one of the safest places in the USA. Being in the center of PA, it is significantly far enough from major targets to neither be damaged or in danger of being over-run by refugees. Additionally, in the middle of Amish and Minnonite country, the locals would learn how to cope from the experts in 19th century living. The city and Centre County of which it is a seat probably together had a little over 100,000 people at Doomsday.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">The student population would have been largely stranded at Penn State -- at least until they knew what had happened. Some would have tried to get home, but most would have become part of the community. As they learned the simple ways of the Amish, they would settle down and have families. For some reason the growth rate of PA was only about 0.25% per anum in OTL, but that was for the whole state. The Amish and Minnonites most likely saw a little bit better than this. College students, seeing themselves suddenly "grown up" and not having access to birth control, would probably end up following the ways of the "locals" and have big families.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">And so, let's say a 2% per anum increase which gives a populatiion of about what it is now -- rounded down -- at 140,000. Central Pennsylvania shows promise as a good survivor community. If we assume the storm system of tropical storm Dean blowing lingering dust clouds from the east coast inward, the fallout might cause some problems. However, by the time the winds shifted to the northwest, most of the fallout would have settled on New England.SouthWriter 03:18, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

LoN Virginia
You have been very critical of Virginia in the League of Nations talkpage. What I want to know is why? What makes you want to rip my masterpiece to shreds? I think the Virginian Republic has earned the right to full membership in the LoN. I have worked very hard on the Virginians! Do you think I am going to just sit arround while you badmouth my greatest creation? Your criticism has been said before. Many, many times. I have given explainations every single time, and yet '''no one listens! '''And do you think that GOPZACK is going to like you calling Kentucky a Virginian "puppet state?" I think not! But seriously, what was it that turned you into a AltHist Simon Cowell?

Yankovic270 01:13, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * <All I did was point out the agression of the Republic's military government. I do see inconsistencies in the viability of the rise of the Republic as you presented it, but I also see big holes in the thesis of the dysopia under which we are all working. However, I have chose, for the most part, to work within it. The only portions I now "control" are Piedmont and the remaining survivors of South Carolina. I have to deal with two rogue states "created" by another that I have adopted. One I have chosen to "soften" into a peaceful "state," the other to develop into a present danger.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I address membership of the LoN over at that talkpage. And we are listening. We just don't happen to agree. As for Kentucky being a "puppet" state, that is not what I said. I referred to Portland as a puppet state. And yes, that is what the city-state is. It was created as a small self-contained government early on in this project. Other larger states were created that naturally would need to interact with it. But basically it is just a city, looking for a place to fit in.


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">As for being an AltHist Simon Cowell? I guess it is the "perfectionist" in me. But I chose to be part of a group, so I am only one vote among many. SouthWriter 18:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Help
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Hi Southwriter could you help me expanding my article call South American World http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/South_American_World, invite more people for help and let's create something big, we could start with a news page.

Thank you please answer me, VENEZUELA 03:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I have other time lines I am working on, but I am here for advice. Here are a few things I do.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I make extensive use of Wikipedia. I use Google Earth to get an idea of distances and towns in the areas involved. I try to make my story as close to reality as possible. I am what we call a "perfectionist," which is a drawback at times. Science Fiction is a lot easier (you can get away with a lot by using vague terms and undeveloped theories).

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">In your idea of an isolated South America, forced to repopulate the world, I would put together a buffer period following the plague -- time for the world to become mostly depopulated with only pockets of survivors and/or the infected subhuman types. Then you can take the knowledge and technology available to South America and go from there. It could be a reverse of what happened in history. Explorers would have the advantage of accurate maps, but they would be facing an unknown world once they landed on foreign shores. Colonization would follow.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Above all, have fun. If you want to have collaboration, be willing to work with the others. And most importantly, be ready to change your ideas if you have to. --SouthWriter 04:08, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Honorary Citizen
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Have you see this: Honorary Citizens (1983: Doomsday). You might find it interesting, especially after I saw your remark in the archive. Mitro 18:09, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Thanks. I have added myself to the page! SouthWriter 19:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">You're welcome. It was one of those articles that people were excited about at first, but then no one wrote anything and it was forgotten and buried. Your comment in the archive reminded me about it. Mitro 20:05, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">What u said on my talkpage about politics
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I see you are a conservative republican. At least you have an opinion in which you beleive. I wish people would stop giving me funny looks when i express my "Old Liberal" views.HAD 22:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I thought you'd gone to bed, man. I assume you mean that you are a libertarian? In my understanding of the Queen's English, being liberal means being generous -- especially with one's OWN money. We joke over here that the "liberals" are only liberal with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Today's "conservative," on the other hand, often wants to go back to the days of Eisenhower (1950's). That adminstration had largely adopted Roosevelt liberalism (considered by some as "socialism"). I am probably more in line with libertarians than most conservatives who claim to be constitutionalists. I see very little in the way of Jeffersonian federalism in America today. SouthWriter 01:37, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I am a left-winger and I am proud of it! I admitt that my political attitudes are severely Socialist. I'm basically toeing the line between being a Socialist and being a Communist.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Yankovic270 01:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">For my political views what I should have said is that I am too socially liberal for the GOP. When it comes to economic issues and foreign policy issues I'm somewhat more in line with the Republicans but I believe my views on most things are too contrarian to be affiliated with any movement or party. --GOPZACK 01:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Whoa! True confessions time! Can it be that the creator of a hyper-conservative militaristic (West) Virginia is a flaming liberal?? If so, it explains some of the misconceptions coming out with the use of the military to "control" an anarchistic situation. Of course, I am not up on the views of Canadian "liberals" and "left-wingers."


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Meanwhile, I think I remember that Zack is a Floridian. I can understand libertarian and contrarian economics a lot better than I can liberalism and socialism. However, it appears that many of the survivor states had to begin with socialistic measures just to survive. SouthWriter 02:21, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I basically made the West African Union a big wank of my politics. Economically I'm centrist, free market is the way to go but I'm not against some state owned industry when it comes to things like power and emergency services. And deregulation can be disaterous as proven the last few years. Socially I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but when it comes to political correctness I think its the worst thing to ever happen to society. Free speech is more important than someone's feelings.Oerwinde 07:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">I am speaking in the sense of being an "Old Liberal" politically with regards to liberty (Very indiviulist) and an American Libretarian economically. HAD 09:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">The Dakotas
<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">South would you like to divide & conquer the Dakotas. I've started the page that has a general over view of South Dakota, I did make a page for which will be an overview of that state but it is currently blank. If you'd like you can start that up. Together we'll define a clear vision for the unknown areas of South Dakota and North Dakota. GOPZACK 21:10, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Sure thing. It looks like we are left with North Dakota sliced up by Lakota and Assinobia right now. There seems to be a little disputed or "no man's land" between those two. The southeast, though, seems "unclaimed." I'm thinking that the Dakotas north and east of the Missouri River and south of Assinobia will have to ban together. SouthWriter 21:38, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Here is the present situation:


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">The Dakotas go from being North and South to being East! North Dakota has less left than does its southern neighbor. SouthWriter 21:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">[[File:Proposed_Mid-Am_states.png]]

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Also, you can see that I suggest the Republic of Lincoln split the state of Nebraska north and South rather than east and west. This gives an easy border (a river) to divide them. And what would be a good name for a North Missouri - South Iowa confederation? Being between the rivers, "Mesopotamia" comes readily to mind. :-) SouthWriter 21:59, Appril 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">Excellent :-) I suppose we should also lay claim to Fargo and Bismarck, neither were hit on Doomsday and I suppose a story could be made based off of the people in south central and south eastern North Dakota rallying around Allen I. Olson the governor at the time.

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">: <span _rte_entity=">As for the name of a North Missouri - South Iowa confederation I'm not sure but when we've got a name we better start writing up a proposal for that one. --GOPZACK 22:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * <span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">Indeed. I figure the farmers of those small towns would have a great will to live even as the larger cities were falling apart. You'll note I marked the areas around the bombed-out cities of Missouri as "claimed" by the confederation of counties marked in red. It needs fleshing out, and I'm not sure where the whacky "Republic of Lincoln" nearby is headed, but I think there is still hope for America. SouthWriter 00:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

<span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity="><span _rte_entity=">I can tell you that all three of the nations I created in North America (Lincoln, Virginia and Assiiniboia) have one thing in common. They have absolutely no intention to rejoin the countries they were formerly a part of. None what-so-ever.

Yankovic270 01:24, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree Yank on one nation, Lincoln they are a "swing nation" if you will. They could easily go either way.


 * As for whats up for the future of Lincoln South you should speak with Yank. --GOPZACK 01:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh & South I need to enlist your services as the population "nazi" to determine what a good population would be for the now renamed "Provisional Republic of The Dakotas"

PS something screwy has happened to your page. GOPZACK 01:45, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

OK I fixed part of it. GOPZACK 01:53, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Probably something I did - I left the site in edit mode quite a while before saving it. SouthWriter 04:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

though I may have exagerated on the part of the Lincolnites, but their rejoining the Provisional United States is still unlikely. You see, the hope that the US would rise again has been fading ever since the Governor comitted suicide trying the maintain contact with the US Federal government. Even if I wanted to write a referendum on the matter, it is still unlikely that it would go in favour of joining the PUSA. I have made it my purpose to know the national psychology of my nations, to know what makes each one "tick" as it were.


 * 1) Republic of Lincoln - Originally a nation of devout patriots, the belief that the US would return sharply declined over the years. This leaves the Lincolnites somewhat jaded and dissillusioned. Thus they are resistant to any attempt to resurrrect the dead US of A.
 * 2) Virginian Republic - The Virginians, due to their militaristic society, have a practical way of looking at the return of the United States. They either think it isn't going to happen, or that it will be a strictly regional event that would never reach the Virginian border. Plus the Virginian government (while in militaristic dictatorship mode) indoctrinated a strong sense of patriotism..... to Virginia. Like Robert E. Lee much of the population thinks of themselves as Virginians first, Americans second. A whole generation thinks of themselves as Virginians and nothing else.
 * 3) Assiniboia - The Aissiniboians have a strong independant nature. This was fueled by their unique geographic position. The two Canadian survivor states (the independant one to the east and the one in the NAU) have attempted to get the Assiniboians to join peacefully. They don't join the "official" Canada due to what they see as the Canadian abandonment of the future Assiniboians. It was because of the openly hostile Lakota that they rejected the offer of the NAU Canada. The openly hostile government to the south and the indifferent government to the east caused them to forge a new identity as Assiniboians. Even if the brushfire wars in North Dakota stopped or the territory in between Assiniboia and the rest of Canada wasn't uncontrolled it is still extremely unlikely that the nation would join either nation.

Yankovic270 02:03, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Hi, Yank. I didn't see you come in. :-)

I am starting to get used to your articles. You are a pretty good story teller. Unfortunately, you and I have a totally different philosophy on alternate histories. You write on the premise that if it is possible, let's go with it. I prefer to look at the probable, and build upon it. I jumped in this alternate history a year into it, and have tried to moderate the fantastical claims that early writers were basing their stories upon. Though not accepting some of the premises, I have chosen to work within the framework that has been lain before I got here. If I didn't, I could create my own time line and seek a "following" there.

And about "your" nations, that is another place where we differ. I once got caught up in a discussion where I referred to "my" republic, but was called on it. I repented. In this joint effort, I don't see us "creating" nations out of nothing. Or rather chosing characters more or less from history and using them to manipulate on our own "game board." When I adopted Madagascar, for example, I found only one thing that may have been much different in the developments there prior to December of 2009. I still don't know if a civilian prime minister would have been retained in December with the absence of the military man that came on board. But I didn't know enough about the military to chose another "real" character, so I kept the civilian. I have about a month to rest on that one, because the elections were postponed until May.

But in a situation where another writer chose to kill a living leader though he lived in real life, I left it alone after my objection was over-ruled with a reasonable explanation. That is like a mini - POD, a personal point of divergence to move the story along in a logical way. In the case of the "outing" of Rockefeller in the Virginian Republic, I would have loved to have seen some intrigue written into his return to politics after twenty years in "exile" (or whatever), but another reasonable general was found, so the story remains much the same.

Well, I've written enough. I think I will go do a little on North Dakota before calling it a night. SouthWriter 04:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. The nations that existed prior to Doomsday may follow that example, but that doesn't account for the survivor states. The nations that didn't exist prior to Doomsday. These nations don't have OTL equivilents, and as such their history is pretty much up to the user creating them. They are the creations of said users, though it is narurally discouraged from be too "RPG-ish" in creating it. History is commonly manipulated to suit the needs of the historian writing it, and the leaders who pay him to write it. And that is referring to "real" history, let alone alternate history. In cases where there is no source history you write your own. I have attempted to write the articles for my three nations as if they actually existed in real life. I gave them leaders, plausible histories, and even attempted to give each a unique "national psyche". I have done my best to actually breath life into my four masterpieces. Though I have created other nations, only three (Assiniboia, Lincoln, Virginia) originally garnered most of my atention and care. Vietnam is swiftly becoming one of my masterpieces. I am very proud and protective of these articles, though I still welcome ideas for improvement (as long as it fits with the idea of the nation I have in my head constantly). I thank you for the praise of my articles by the way. It is good to know that my work is enjoyed by others as much as I enjoy making it. :)

Yankovic270 01:38, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * You have just illustrated my point. We do not have the same philosophy of writing alternate history. My approach is based on facts that are verifiable or, if not, at least viable. That is as real as possible using real people or basing it on what has happened in the lives of real people in slightly different situations. History that is manipulated is mere propoganda, a story put together to sway opinions. There are numerous points of view in a court of law, for example, but all points must be considered if justice is to be served. In alternate history, or in historical fiction, one should base the story on what could most likely happen. The more you pour on possiblilites the further from reality your story becomes. It may be enjoyable as we suspend disbelief, but it is still close to fantasy when you get to the end.


 * And by the way, Yank, it is far better for others to praise you than for you to praise yourself. SouthWriter 02:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Very well. You have a point. We do have differing opinions on alternate history. I believe it's also about how people behave in such a situation. I don't think my philosophy is any better or worse than yours. My contributions may not be satisfactory for a perfectionist like yourself, but someone must like them. After all they are in the canon of 1983: Doomsday. And is it so wrong that I am proud of what I have created? You could tell me how to make my articles better instead of constantly insulting my work. If you would just tell me how to make my articles better I would make the changes necessary (to a certain extent, of course). C'mon man! Could you at least try to "play nice" with the other users? What do you say South? Do you want to bury the hatchet and work together?

Yankovic270 04:11, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Yank. I was about to go to bed and there was this notice in my inbox!


 * Actually Yank, I have mentioned other places that I am resigned to your stories being the way they are. I have made constructive suggestions which you have graciously incorporated. However, I am not he only user/contributer that is uncomfortable with your articles - especially your show piece - the Virginian Republic. I did make a passing disparaging remark about the Republic of Lincoln earlier, but I don't think too much of that article was controversial. [ Well there is the rather odd deification of Abraham Lincoln by over one in five of the population! But other than that...] Assinobia is rather odd in that it intrudes into former US territory -- granted, it's mostly barren land -- on no other authority than an old map you found. And now it's a nation that doesn't want to associate with either of it's "parent" countries!


 * Our philosophies are diametrically opposed, so "working together" may be impossible. However, "working around" each other may be possible. What I mean is that when I see how something is impossible, I must step in and offer a better suggestion (like I did concerning Rockefeller). If I see something that is improbable, I can either let it slide, or quietly point out why I don't think it would work. For exampIe, if I had come on the scene during the discussion of the Virginian Republic, I might have pointed to a more probable Republic of Tennessee. You would have pointed out that the area was unmanagable and still headed east to see if your general and his troops could find some more managable people to save. But at least I would have had my say. Or you might have taken a look at "managable" West Virgina actually contacting Ft. Campbell and asking for help.


 * I have admitted I am a perfectionist. And as long as you don't try to conquer established states in the name of some sort of Alliance, I am happy for you to continue manipulating facts to suit your storyline. What happens in Virginia, stays in Virginia (to borrow a phrase). I will refrain from "insulting" your work, but I can only promise that criticism will not be destructive. My one vote for or against graduating an article remains but one vote. I wish you a very good Thursday. SouthWriter 04:56, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I admit I do what I do because I enjoy it. But I don't think of the timeline as a mere game. I think of it as a sort of thought experiment. I challenge myself to ask myself "What would Virginia/Lincoln/Assiniboia do?" I try to understand the nation's unique group psyche, and how it would affect the decisions of the leaders. You may include all the information you want on your articles, but doesn't change the fact that you you don't instinctively know what the nation would do. But seeing as the three nations I'm talking about don't exist in real life, that means I needed to build the articles from the ground up, without much assistance from the OTL.

Yankovic270 14:13, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson War
South I understand you had a few issues with the Virginia- Jackson war. I was just wondering what they were? --GOPZACK 22:33, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Several things, Zack. First, the very reason for the expedition was to build up the esteem of a tiny city-state that has far less "claim" over a territory than a nation of 20+ subdivisions (counties). And this political entity is not even adjacent to the Virginian Republic. In fact, if anything it should be annexed to Kentucky. I think East Tennessee should have had a voice in what was an act of war against fellow Tennesseeans.


 * Second, the premise for the war was too flimsy. Or at least the response to a discourteous ejection was far greater than warranted. I had suggested that some time for reconnaissance or diplomatic fact-gathering be worked into the story. And even some rudimentary back story as to the rise of some warlord in the city. But what happened was a war of uneven forces, resulting in the deaths of a number of noncombatants.


 * And this all came from an Alliance that wants to be considered respectable on the world stage. I guess it just comes down to a difference in philosophy of history. I believe things happen for a purpose, but it appears that Yank just makes things happen to see what happens next. To me, alternative history is an intellectual excercise, to Yank, it's a game. My stories seek to make others think, his appear to be for entertainment. SouthWriter 02:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you should talk to Yank about the Jackson war & your objections I don't want to speak for him. --GOPZACK 02:57, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been over it with him. I have decided that he is going to tell the story as he wants to tell it. I have but one vote and I have made it heard. The war is not justifiable and IMO should not be promoted to canon. If it can be reworked to be justifiable, then by all means conquer away. In my case, the twenty year stalemate against Toccoa may have to be dealt with more severely in the story of the Piedmont Republic. In that case, at least, we know that a dictatorial government is in place. SouthWriter 03:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

How about there was a previous exploration attempt by Portland, and that exposed the nature of the Jackonian dictatorship? What if the Dixie Alliance is getting reports of atrocities being committed by the Jacksonian ruling elite? That would make the expulsion and robbing of the expedition the spark that caused the war, but not the only reason the war was fought.

Yankovic270 04:18, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds plausible. A short paragraph, or even sentence, within the "contacts" section of the Portland article could establish the existence and character of the city-state of Jackson. However, that would make the advance of the Virginian army a show of force to begin with. They would not have walked in looking for negotiations, but rather armed to the teeth and demanding justice for the oppressed townspeople. At that point the politicos in Jackson would have begun serious "negotiations." A war might develop from this, but at least it would not be one "sparked" by dishonor. SouthWriter 05:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Canadian contact with Southern Hemisphere
Responding to your question on my talk page, I'm not quite sure. I wrote that a while ago, and it's possible that I didn't read the article about the Benjamin Franklin as thoroughly as I should have and consequently thought that they had visited Canada before Europe. I suppose '91 would make the most sense. --DarthEinstein 23:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

North Florida
I agree that poor Tallahassee is gone. I reckon that North Florida will be governed from Gainesville, the largest surviving city in the area. I would think that North Florida would become aligned with fellow democratic survivor states in the former American south. South Florida I'm sure will maintain great relations with their fellow americans in the South but I agree they will most likely join the East Caribbean Federation rather than the SAC. (GOPZACK)


 * I can see Lakeland receiving some refugees from Tallahassee, including some of the government staff. A temporary government would be set up until contact was made in Gainesville, where the bureaucracy of the University of Florida would serve well as a framework for a new capital. It would probably assume it was "the Florida" until contact was made with the rest of the state, especially refugees from the south who claim there are survivors near the Everglades. This would probably come to pass within a few years. A decision would be made in the early nineties to set up separate governments to allow more autonomy for the local governments (after all, "he who governs least, governs best").


 * An alliance with the ECF makes so much more sense than one with the SAC. This keeps the Cubans at bay, keeping them from invading the southeast. SouthWriter 03:29, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, what do you have in mind? --GOPZACK 23:19, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

This messaging between talk pages can get confusing, but at least it keeps others from following along too closely. :-)

As for North Florida, I have mostly just been cleaning up Perry's grammar. I figured you can go in any direction you want with it since he has essentially turned it over to you. I lived in the panhandle when I was young so I don't know much about the area in question apart from what I can gather from Wikipedia. But then, that's the way I build my alternate realities anyway. SouthWriter 00:38, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

PR
Feel free to update the article. Technically its not mine, most of the work was done by an anon, I just helped get it graduated. Mitro 13:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Indiana
Alrighty, I would like to wrap this up and get it cannoned, think you could fix it up alittle, or could you give me some advice?Perryz101 19:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can clean up the grammar, if need be. I'll look it over, and see if I see any logical inconsistencies. By Monday, we'll run it by the others on the main talk page and see if there are any objections. SouthWriter 20:12, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Indiana could control a small portion of Ohio, the end of the Wabash River, and even into Illinois, Danville, which is on the banks of Vermilion?Perryz101 21:52, May 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that the Republic should work towards reunification with the southern half of the state whick has been claimed by Kentucky, especially if you are going to have the Republic of Indiana join the Dixie Alliance. As much as rivers make excellent boundaries, I think that expanding into other states is a bad thing without the express permission.of the survivors in the area. SouthWriter 02:37, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with making Southern Indiana, rejoin..but GOPZACK says they have taken up Kentucky life, which I disagree with..I live in Southern Indiana...and I would never give up being a Hoosier, And about the river Idea..I think I should off till we can get Southern Indiana.Perryz101 03:51, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that Zack means they have "taken up Kentucky life," but rather they have become part of Kentucky. It is still possible that the Commonwealth of Kentucky can have "states" that are part of its "nation." All that may be necessary is that all of Indiana agree to be part of one nation and that nation will include various "states," just as the Virginian Republic has various states. It is just as possible to be both a Kentuckian and a "Hoosier" in TTL as it is to be an American and a Hoosier in OTL. SouthWriter 04:50, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

I see, so is Southern Indiana righfuly part of Indiana. Shouldent it be part of Indiana?


 * When Kentucky expeditions moved above bombed out southern portions of Indiana taht bordered their state, they found struggling city-states that needed assistance. None of them had claimed to be successors of the state, and welcomed the help. If they had continued further north, past the ashes of the capital, they would have seen communities as you have envisioned them, reaching out over and around their demolished capital city. Perhaps they would not then have "claimed" the south as brothers, but only as neighbors. This will take time, as will the Indiana article you are writing. SouthWriter 05:58, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Note to self
This is to test a theory. 98.71.143.59 06:14, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Indiana Revert
All I can say to what you've been doing in the PUSA: Bravo, South, Bravo. Arstarpool 00:48, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things
Nice job on the Presidents.

Anyway, I wanted to update you on two images I have uploaded. First off, I hope you don't mind, but I uploaded a new image of a "Whites only beach." I think I also think those two characters I added to the sign could become semi-mascots for the Confederacy, something like the Ampelmännchen of East Germany.

I have also been thinking about it and I have uploaded a potential new flag for the confederacy. After doing some research, the "Stars and Bars" were becoming less popular during wartime, and a new flag was going to happen (which did). The flag of the CS was changed three times. But if the war ended with them being able to exist as a separate nation, I am sure they would adopt a new flag which had more to do with the Confederacy. So I have uploaded something new and original. It like one of the proposed flags for the CS in 1863, but I decided to make it grey instead of blue (since blue was the Union). What do you think? --NuclearVacuum 01:41, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am only a few sentences from finishing the first bio -- and it was easy since nothing changed but the war turning sour on Lincoln. The rest are going to face interesting twists -- sort of working backwards toward a detailed time line.


 * It looks like you used some sort of art program to make your sign. You mispelled THE in the middle of the sign, though. Though I suppose outlined figures in different colors is appropriate, they seem a bit silly to me. But then, aparteid is silly. [You know, I worked hard getting Destin to work!! ]


 * I dont like the new flag. The gray and white just doesn't stand out. With the full-size cross, the horizonal bar doesn't do well, Confederate_Gray.pngr. Perhaps if we want to incorporate the gray, we could replace the white of the banner of the third national flag with gray. I'm afraid it removes the "purity" (or truth -- Confederate_Gray_2.pngver the white is supposed to mean), but the "blood stripe" is sort of mellowed at the same time as representing the blood stained uniforms that won the armitice. It seems more balanced, or something. But then, when we start adding stars, the cross may need enlarging. Of course, if we go revert to a version of the stars and bars using gray for blue as with the the flag to the left.


 * I am so sorry, I didn't mean to out stage you or anything like that. I just got board and tried something different. As for the flag, wow, I thought it looked amazing. Now I am not too sure. I do like the idea you mentioned with the "blooded stained uniforms," it seems more symbolic. But I may have to read some more history to figure something out. --NuclearVacuum 13:40, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Russian Expansion
Would you take some time to read and give me ideas on how to expand the Russian Expansion Timeline? --Catherine 00:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Catherine. I skimmed over your timeline, and it looks a lot better than many I've seen. Not knowing much about Russia, I can't say how accurate it is to any points of departure you made from our timeline. It's extensive use of maps is something that could be a distraction to anyone who is not used to the Map Game from which you decided to diverge. I can see why that would happen, for that Game was far too unpredictable.

If I were writing the article, I would have fewer maps and and concentrate on decisive moments in history that might go different once you diverge from our time line. For example, in a time line I am working on, the American Civil War ends in a draw. In changing one decisive battle in 1864, I saw that I had to go back in history to 1862 to change another battle so the north could not bounce back. The rules of the time line have the war going on about a year longer, but no definite point of divergence during the war, so I was free to pick and chose. Other time lines have a definite point of divergence, which if changed create a whole new timeline.

If you can, find a friend who has an interest in Russian history. The two of you can work together to bring Russia into the twentieth century as a "New Rome" which Hitler would not have a chance against! I figure, at its current rate it will also be over into North America by the early 19th century as well. I can only hope that there are a few benevolent czars along the way! SouthWriter 03:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

New Montgomery
South, do you have any ideas for a possible revision of New Montgomery? :) I would like to keep the basic premise - white racists breaking away to form their own nation based on their vision of the old Confederacy - and do away with more cartoonish and outlandish details. I definitely plan to write out the "invasion" of Hattiesburg. Basically, in the chaos in south Alabama and Mississippi, racial tensions skyrocketed, leading to an unfortunate war between whites and blacks near Selma. White supremacists who helped bring down Auburn got involved and would lead the eventual "New Montgomery" community. Both sides, unsure that they weren't the only people left alive, ended their long war in a stalemate, believing survival of the species was preferable to mass extinction. This would have occurred in 1984, when communications were still spotty. While the African-Americans settled in Selma, the whites built a new community where New Montgomery is now. The leaders babbled on about Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and destiny, while most people just wanted a halfway decent place to rebuild their lives. The stark racism should be dying off about now, with the people more open to outsiders (but still somewhat suspicious of African Americans, primarily due to stereotypes and exaggerated stories from the Selma War 26 years ago). BrianD 04:10, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * OKay, here's how I see these guys ending up along a river in a national park:


 * First, they are trouble makers in the survivor town of Auburn (which had received an overload of refugees from Columbus, Birmingham and Montgomery. Having such a large flux of people, the provisional government made of a small group of government officials from Montgomery that had fled there. The crisis was too much for the city, and the government.


 * The toughest and meanest of them attempted to take over, only to be run out of town. Even with the trouble makers gone, though, Auburn fails. A small village remains on its own, but most sought to join with survivors in Tuskeegee and other towns nearby. The band of rebels, though, are able to pick up desparate survivors in Notasulga (west on hiway 14) and sack the town for any goods. They move on to Tallassee, a little bit bigger town, where they meet resistance. And so they flee there with no "recruits."


 * Next on Highway 14, though are the abandoned towns of Wetumpka, Robinson Springs, and Prattville (all within about fifteen miles of Montgomery and about 50% destroyed. They are able to pick up supplies left in abandoned stores, and are well prepared to take on the people of Selma, their last stop on Highway 14. They have picked up recruits in small villages along the way, growing to a band of 135 rebels -- one hundred men, twenty women and fifteen children (seven boys and eight girls) -- only a few of the men are married to some of the women, and perhaps ten of the children are of those marriages.


 * In Selma, their "fortunes" turn. They find racial tension high in the city, and they take advangtage of that to attempt a takeover of the city. Claiming to be representatives of the government in Montgomery, the rebels convince enough of the still largely white city government (check that with records if you can) to allow them to set up an emergency government in Selma. In a little while, the white population is being assissted with disproportionate amounts of aid. Favortism was quite clear. The black population begins to rise up in protest only to be ignored. The new emergency police force turns out to be poorly disciplined. Protests build into riots, which are treated harshly. That leads to attempted court house takeovers. Authorities fire upon the crowds, and an all-out race war begins.


 * After three months, battling gangs have caused the city to be segregated, with the southwest portion (formerly the affluent country club area anyway) being exclusively white while the downtown area and the other portions being mostly black. The gangs ruled the portions by intimidation, conscripting able-bodied men to fight for their "rights." Thousands died in the struggle. Eventually the black majority wretched power from the bogas state government, and the "rules" were laid down. Whites were to either submit to serving the black community "as payment for their crimes against humanity (past and present), or leave town altogether. Some agreed, seeing it as easier than making it in the unknown world outside Dallas County. Most, of course, left town -- the majority going with the "state government" they had come to depend upon.


 * This crowd of 20,000 men, women, and children wondered down Highway 22, overwhelming the tiny village of Orrville. Any who wished to joined the "new exodus" in search for greener pastures. Following 22 to Highway 5, the crowd picked up some more "pilgrims" in Pine Hill after picking the town dry of supplies. Next down the road was the town of Thomasville. Though a little bigger, the town was easily overun by the hoard. Tiny Coffevile fell to the 20, 246 men, women and children in search of their next home. It became "base camp" from which the scouts went out to find a "place of our own." That's when they discovered Bladon Springs State Park and adjacent Chocktaw Wildlife Refuge. They had found the "Promised Land"!


 * With the built in facilities and campsites in the state park, and abundant game nearby, New Montgomery was founded. Among those they had run into along the way, the citizens had convinced a hundred or so black men and women that they could take better care of them than any local government could. This resulted in a state of involuntary servitude, otherwise known as "slavery." Rules were made regulating the treatment of "servants," but these amounted to keeping them safe from harm to allow a more fruitful tenure.


 * Over time, the black servants refused to be treated as less than human. Although certain efforts were made to keep blacks from assembling together, the conviction that these "poor souls" needed saving, allowed church services among the servants. Some of the employers would get to called assemblies late, and were slow to see that it was in the churches that rebellion arose. In 1988, the government of New Mongomery "freed" all the servants. A new age arose. SouthWriter 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell you're not a fan of the concept....and this is one of those times when I benefitted from some constructive criticism. I've read through your suggestions once and will do so at least another time, and use them in revising the article. I have to admit that I chuckle at your opening line...."here's how these guys wind up along a river in a national park" :-) But the idea behind that was that these people were looking for a new start, and all of the towns they encountered weren't sufficient enough (in one way or another) to move several thousand people into as was. Why not start their own town? And why not at the state park? They saw water that was drinkable (and not glowing in the dark), there was plenty of game and plenty of trees. Perhaps one day they would grow and multiply enough to build the "New Confederacy" but in the meantime it was enough to start over.BrianD 14:33, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actuallly had fun writing that scenario. These folk were bad eggs -- at least the leaders were -- and I had to make them palatable to pick up enough folk to end up with a large tent city in the state park. I probably had to many migrating from Selma, but the idea of the white population being in the area around the country club (you can see the layout of the golf clubs stretching across the lower left quadrant from ten miles up!) makes a whole lot of since. I've been to the city and I know that it was still very segregated into the nineties. Once the whites were expelled, I just had them going down the road until they found a place, like you say, with water and game and timber.
 * It was the original concept I was playing with -- a bunch of white separatists, preferring to be apart. I thought I remembered that they had a sort of slavery to begin with, so I had the indentured servants worked in. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Perhaps the nation/state of Neonotia will reach all the way to Mississippi and include them as well. It would be good to reclaim Mobile Bay. SouthWriter 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for the hard work. They were bad eggs, and still are: part of the whole goofball General Lee scenario that I deleted today was to show that, behind the laughable chain of events, there was the very real possibility that if these guys ever got ahold of serious manpower and weaponry, they would do some damage. That still exists. Maybe New Montgomery is better left alone, whether by Neonotia or anyone else. Speaking of, I'm looking forward to Neonotia!BrianD 03:41, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the original concept I was playing with -- a bunch of white separatists, preferring to be apart. I thought I remembered that they had a sort of slavery to begin with, so I had the indentured servants worked in. I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Perhaps the nation/state of Neonotia will reach all the way to Mississippi and include them as well. It would be good to reclaim Mobile Bay. SouthWriter 03:30, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for the hard work. They were bad eggs, and still are: part of the whole goofball General Lee scenario that I deleted today was to show that, behind the laughable chain of events, there was the very real possibility that if these guys ever got ahold of serious manpower and weaponry, they would do some damage. That still exists. Maybe New Montgomery is better left alone, whether by Neonotia or anyone else. Speaking of, I'm looking forward to Neonotia!BrianD 03:41, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Help on Central World!
Hi, I created a new article call Central World, it's about the Central Powers when they win the Great War and all that world, I have only made 4 articles of that timeline: League of Nations, Mitteleuropa, Central World, and The Treaty of Topkapi. I would like you to help me expand it and to invite more people, and to see my articles and comment on the discussion page, please answer me, VENEZUELA 01:14, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

FD?
Did it really say Richmond was its own entity? Because that is not what I heard? --NuclearVacuum 21:56, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I made an assumption that such would be the case eventually. The Constitution gives them the option, and I have to go with President Beauregard on this one -- it would be better to move the capital than have a blamed "neutral zone" in Virginia. I'm thinking maybe someplace on the South Carolina coast. :-)


 * The Confederate government had too much on there mind to be building cities in the 1860's, but the Constitution clearly states, Article 1, Section 8:


 * (17) To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;


 * Of course this is OUR time line, so we can move the capital sometime before the Treaty of London. Or let it be part of the negotiations to avoid a DMZ. It would be better if it were more centrally located anyway. SouthWriter 19:34, May 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about moving the capital? --NuclearVacuum 01:32, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

More parties
Sorry, but I have been very busy lately. I remember you mentioning something to me about having presidents after WWII being in different parties. Before it gets out of hand, I have no trouble with that. Provided that the Civil Rights movement begins around this time. --NuclearVacuum 18:38, May 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Civil Rights Movement, what do you think of my paragraph and matching article snub on "Mike King, Jr."? I just thought that the 1930's that King's dad would not have the freedom to travel, nor the money to do so, in a more restrictive CSA. And so, no visit to Germany means no name change. Everything else stays about the same, though. --SouthWriter 19:40, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nation help
Thanks for telling me. As I am new, I had really no idea of what I was doing. I will fix that. Thanks! Azecreth 11:34, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Co admin
I didn't mean to make it sound so much like the CSA was being reluctant with Germany. I was attempting to make a feel that Hitler attmpted to butter-up to the Confederacy in order to gain some support or even CS neutrality for his inevitable actions. I guess I see no trouble in the CSA declaring to protect Poland along with the UK and France, and becoming a major part in the European war at the start. I will need to rewrite that.

As for me not making any comments, that is for two reasons. First off, I have been quite busy and loosing some interest in alternate history, so I have been coming here more rarely. But when I do check it out, I see your changes and see no real problems or disagreements. But I do have one complainant. Why is Martin Luther King, Jr. page called ? Unless there is a crucial and historical reason for this, I demand that you replace the name to his name in OTL. --NuclearVacuum 16:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the confidence. About "Mike King, Jr. -- Read the page carefully. King was born Michael King, Jr., and his father only changed his name after making a trip to the Holy Land and Germany (Hitler's Germany!) in 1934. As a black citizen in the CSA the senior King most likely would not have been able to make that trip. If he had not been at that conference (a propaganda event for Hitler, by the way) in Germany, he would probably would not have been impressed by Martin Luther. And so, he would not have changed his name to first Michael Luther King and then Martin Luther King. They both were known as "Mike" by friends well into the fifties. And so, Martin Luther King remains Michael "Mike" King in this time line. Unless we concoct a reason why Michael King, Sr., would change his name while a struggling, or even successful, BAPTIST minister in Atlanta, I stand by the change. --SouthWriter 16:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Virginian guns/uniforms
I had allready changed the rifle the Virginians use to the M14. And yes, the fiber is a fictional one. It is a blend of Olefin, Polyester and altered fibers obtained from the tobbacco plant. It's about time the damned weed served a practical purpose. I chose the Civil War uniforms, because I wanted something both cheap to make and recognizably a military uniform. I would rather not have the Virginian army look like a big group of hunters.

Yankovic270 17:39, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

It also contains Model, a small amount of Spandex to increase its longevity without making it too rubbery, and Kevlar to protect the wearer from gunfire.

Yankovic270 18:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Great ideas for fabric from the fine men and women at Virginia Tech. I'm betting every one of them was a member of the Corps of Cadets! SouthWriter 18:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You better believe it! Nothing but the best (possible) fabric for the Virginian military's uniforms. The formula basically includes every synthetic fiber used for clothing that was available at the time. Most of the component fibers were invented about 20-30 years before Doomsday.

Yankovic270 13:58, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yugoslavia in general
Why of course South, I was referencing the date of our signing up to the wiki, not our ages. Actually, most of you probably have me beat, since I'm 19 years old. As for inserting myself into the TL, well, I really don't see myself having a significant role in a post Doomsday world. At least, not yet. As I'd really like to be a translator one day, maybe I'd be one in the TL. But that really won't happen just yet.--Vladivostok 13:36, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply. You had some really good ideas.
Over at Talk:Easternized_World, I finally gave a short response to your long message. Like I say there, if you want to use what you wrote to branch an alternate history from my alternate history, then I'll put a link to yours on mine. You could name yours "Alt Easternized World" or something, or put the year it branched off... Anyway, thanks for being interested in my timeline! --Riction 13:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Friendship
Haha relax South =). I was talking about my friendship with you, or I guess it can only be called an e-friendship =(. I would nominate and vote for you if it came to that, dude. You are smart, I can see that. You have clear insight, and you helped me on my Radioactive Survivors page! Even though it didn't come to something. You most definitely would clear the time lines of any crap and make them as neat as possible =). ProfessorMcG 22:36, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kevin. I was beginning to think I wasn't appreciated. :-)


 * Anyway, I'm always glad to help when I can. I have one other time line I'm helping with (a so-called co-administrator), and a very ambitious (if I should say so myself) effort at a time line of my own. I really need to be doing some "real writitng," but I am suffering from "writer's block" (or maybe just out-and-out FEAR of rejection notices!) right now. I enjoy writing, and knowing that what I write is being read by at least a few people makes me feel better. SouthWriter 16:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I doubt anyone is going to reject what you write. Most of them are going to be jealous, including me. So go ahead, if you tell them they'll be anxious to see what you put out. ProfessorMcG 18:15, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Kevin, I wish I were a high school teacher! It would be a pleasure to have you as a student. SouthWriter 18:59, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually you wouldn't even find out what my voice sounds like, I hardly talk in class. =) ProfessorMcG 19:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe I'd just have to make you write some awesome essays! :-)
 * Or maybe just call on you a lot if it were history class! They might get to think you were "teacher's pet"! Seriously though, I was (and am) an introvert myself when I was your age. I played on the football team -- on defense! Interaction was in a physical sort of way. I was very good in math, but only moderately successful in history (my younger brother beat me out there, becoming a history teacher, in fact). I ended up switching to speech and drama (I had some one-act play roles in high school) when college math turned out to be harder than I expected. SouthWriter 19:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am good at math and when people hear me tell them I hate math they always act surprised =). I play soccer, right now I was watching the World Cup (Portugal lost, sadface). I don't know if you looked at my user page, but I hope to go into history as my major, something that mixes languages and history. ProfessorMcG 20:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still like math, but can't get into higher math. I am interested in science and some history. I have studied Spanish (high school), French (College), ancient Latin (HS), Greek and Hebrew (Graduate School), but don't do well in anything but English. However, the study of Greek and Latin helped me to understand English vocabulary a lot better. I started writing once I got out of school, but have never published much. Now I am "semi-retired" watching my grand sons play in their living room. I hope you do well in your studies. But right now, enjoy your summer. --SouthWriter 22:59, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * It kind of sucks when you have soccer practice all morning and then you come home and have to do 5 hours of online summer school ;) ProfessorMcG 01:39, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it gives you the edge next school term, it's worth it. If it's makeup from last term, perhaps soccer should not have been as big of a priority then. :-(
 * I know, I'm sounding like a dad. Of course I am a dad, so that stands to reason, huh? My 25 year old son is still in college, so I know how priorities and studies clash sometimes. Hey, I'm a writer, and priorities are a big problem with me, too. SouthWriter 02:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that I have a consumer ed requirement in order to graduate, and I'm taking my consumer ed over the summer. ProfessorMcG 02:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, get become an educated consumer - or whatever - and get graduated already! Well, at least enjoy becoming a senior without such a drag of a course. SouthWriter 02:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to be a sophomore next year, I'm probably one of the youngest people on this website. ProfessorMcG 03:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have issues with the formatting of this section! I put indentations and even spaces, but they disappear when you edit!
 * Any way, I wasn't looking at your profile when I wrote that, but I did seem to remember that you were only 15 years old. However, it still follows that you will have an easier senior year when it does come up if you get some of the extra classes out of the way in the summers. I was referencing the fact that the class you're taking was required for graduation.
 * By the way, I am most probably the OLDEST editor on this website. SouthWriter 16:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * And I am sure my age shows too. Honestly, haha =) ProfessorMcG 18:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello South! I have come back from Lutheran camp with a religious vigor, well...at least more vigor than I had before. And my summer has been coolio! How about you? ProfessorMcG 22:16, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Has it really been a month since we "chatted"? It's good to hear that camp went well. I hope that you had time to study the Bible in the midst of all the fun stuff you did. My summer has been hot! And some days the air conditioning goes off during the hottest part (known as "load control," where we agree to be uncomfortable to save energy and let the hospitals and offices be comfortable -- and prevent power outages). SouthWriter 22:30, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is something so simple...yet I never would of though of that. ProfessorMcG 22:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the power company came up with the idea a while back. They put a meter on our heat pump, an presto - sauna in the afternoon. We keep the thermostat at 75 degrees, but when they "zap" (actually 'dezap') it can get over 80 in the hermetically sealed box we call a house. Energy efficient, but it can get hot inside when it's near 100 outside. We would never do this on our own -- we let "the company" do it. Maybe some day we'll install solar cells on the roof and sell THEM the extra electricity! --SouthWriter 23:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for editing the Plymouth flag :-)Arstarpool 14:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Arstar. I also posted suggestions to make your new article more accurate. I was tempted to change the "first colony" lines without notice, but I decided to "play nice." (Good advice from Mitro himself). SouthWriter 16:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's something else I want to talk to you about. If you haven't read the events of today, about 6-8 people were admitted to the TSPTF, including myself. The thing is, many of us thought YOU would make a good admin, but since you didn't show any interest, you were rejected. Why don't you ask Ben? Believe me, you are problably one of our best contributors out there.
 * There's something else I want to talk to you about. If you haven't read the events of today, about 6-8 people were admitted to the TSPTF, including myself. The thing is, many of us thought YOU would make a good admin, but since you didn't show any interest, you were rejected. Why don't you ask Ben? Believe me, you are problably one of our best contributors out there.


 * And as for the "first colony" thing, you could've changed that. Arstarpool 18:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confidence. Ben, Brian, and even Mitro, have a good relationship with me. I tend to agree with them most of the time. However, administrative duties are a bit more than I want to take on. I'm more of an "advisor" than and adminstrator. SouthWriter 19:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Changes"
I am sorry that I did not notify you of the changes, but to be honest, I have felt a bit insulted by some of your responses lately. Arstarpool 06:39, July 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Honesty is the best policy. Just send me a note any time you feel you need to discuss any of my remarks. SouthWriter 06:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Catherine
She has been banned, I believe. So I think it is up to you to show Xterror that he should at least be respectful of other people's opinions. ProfessorMcG 15:51, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * So she can no longer answer for herself, huh? Would Catherina950 be able to RECEIVE correspondence? XterrorX's objections did show up on HIS page, I believe (It's hard to follow "conversations" that bounce between users), so the post can safely go in context. I posted a request to her for permission to answer on her account, but if she cannot post, I guess it is up to me to "set the atheist" straight. Besides, his objections were posted to Catherina. I copied the objections, though, and I will post them to HIS talk page on her behalf. I will post to her as well, so that she can at least have coherent answers to such objections (she is a confessed Liberal and practical socialist, so I am not sure if she would ever need such answers).


 * A note to atheists and agnostics, though: Your objections really are very weak, given true science these days. Arguments have to be a lot more sophisticated to get anywhere in an intelligent debate. SouthWriter 16:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Creationism
SouthWriter, I've noticed this small... issue... and I was just wondering. Are you a creationist through-and-through or do you take Genesis to be metaphorical? Fegaxeyl 17:21, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Creationist through and through. The questions that XterrorX presented as "reasons" for abandoning the faith (in his case Jehovah's Witness beliefs) are so easily answered that I can imagine any honest agnostic scientist cringing seeing them in print.


 * By the way, die-hard atheists scoff at Christians that "take Genesis to be metaphorical." To be a "theistic evolutionist" is a HUGE oxymoron! Dawkins has a field day with such arguments! --SouthWriter 17:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe in Theistic Evolution, and it's not an oxymoron. Why do you suppose so? ProfessorMcG 17:58, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only way not to take genesis as metaphorical is to completely reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution, which IMO is ignorant. I'm an atheist myself, but unlike some don't dismiss those of faith as ignorant, we simply looked at the unexplained and one side decided god was unknowable and moved on, and the other decided everything could be explained in time, both are issues of faith, but one is in an unknowable god, the other is in mankind. But dismissing evidence observed in nature, fossil evidence, lab results, etc, just because it doesn't fit the bible is ignorant.Oerwinde 18:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * To be "ignorant" is literally to be against knowledge - the KNOWABLE, as you say. And so, you have to produce some of the "overwhelming" evidence to support your point of view.


 * To McG, I respectively submit that atheists are indeed justified in attacking "theistic evolution" as being an oxymoron. In order to "get along" with the science of the atheist, you have to agree that God apparently did everything as if God is not there. This is placing along side each other contradictory statements, the definition of an oxymoron. Dawkins rightfully will point out that without a literal fall into sin, there is no need for a savior from sin.


 * To Oerwinde, in attempting to be moderate, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You give your "opinion" that rejecting what you call "overwhelming" evidence as being "ignorant" and then you say you do not "dismiss those of faith as ignorant." But you assume that "those of faith" do not look at the evidence. On the contrary, we look at the evidence, and consider the "unknown" as truly unknown. In order to "explain" the origin of the unknown a lot of guessing has to go on -- unless of course someone who was there in the beginning informs us of what actually happened. As an atheist, you take your guesses on faith, and as a theist, I take the word of the One Who was there on faith. And THEN we both look at the same evidence and try to make some sense out of it.
 * The evidence from design - that which we CAN observe - is far more convincing to an open mind than the evidence from chaos. The DNA inside of all living things is at heart organized information -- tiny "computers" working along predictable ordered lines. Redundancy abounds, with much of the information being "turned off" until needed. Recombination occurs every time sexual reproduction occurs, producing variations that can run in the millions for some organisms. With asexual reproduction, the variations that appear are actually adaptations made using already existing information in the DNA (a germ that "survives" has turned on DNA that allows it to do so).SouthWriter


 * I look at theistic evolution as say, "Well it has been proven, or at least, there is evidence that suggest that evolution occurred". And then I think, "God is still here even if there wasn't evolution. So evolution must be the way to explain how God created the world." To me it's not oxymoronic it just explains how God did everything. ProfessorMcG 19:02, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * When it comes to the evidence, atheistic science has produced what is called in advertising "bait and switch." The evidence that "suggests" that evolution has occurred is really just generally accepted, and observed, evidence of adaptation to the environment. The finches that Darwin observed, for instance, have been shown to revert back to an earlier form when conditions change! But those animals have adapted over time to be different -- from original parents that had variations within their DNA allowing such change. It was not "random mutations" (which are almost always bad, and ALWAYS result in LOSS of information). That is a long way to say the terms have been "redefined." Change observed over a short time is called "evolution," and thus it is assumed that such changes also changed reptiles to birds, etc.


 * It is oxymoronic to place "evidence" that God is not needed -- and thus practically nonexistent -- while insisting that God exists. "Theistic Evolution" as understood by those in the science community, places the idea of a Creator (Who can do anything) up against the concept of "Self-creation" (coming into being with no plan). I challenge you, as a young theist, to consider whether God would mislead his people over the course of three to four thousand years to believe that he did something one way simply because they "weren't ready for the truth" - a "truth" that rebellious mankind would put forth in denial of His sovereignty over it all. That would, in essence, make God a liar -- or at best, absent from all communication with mankind.
 * If everything we have in the Bible, or the Koran for that matter, concerning God's work in the past is just the imaginations of men, then how are we to take the modern imaginations of men who claim no belief in Him? That is a question the agnostic theist (or deist, believing God is there, but not knowable) must face. Re-examine the evidence, McG, what does it actually show? No guessing allowed! --SouthWriter 19:46, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't you guessing at the existence of God, South? you simply take the evidence at had and interpret it as more evidence for the existence of God. or have you actually seen Him? anyway, the only thing the adaptation of the finches proves is that evolution works both ways. it helps an organism adapt to a new environment, and helps them re-adapt to an old one. i have a friend with a degree in Biology and she states quite emphatically that random mutations are good a significant portion of the time. Destroyanator 20:06, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Des, I have a much better indicator that God exists than "seeing" Him. I have faith! And that faith is only there because He put it there. But to the point, the evidence that does exist fits more to the existence of a Designer than to "random change over a long time." It does not take "guessing" to figure that out. As for the "evolution" working both ways, that opinion is an example of redefining "evolution." If by that term you simply mean "change," then we have to agree. However, the fact that the finches "change back" indicates that no new information made them the way they are. Their genes have "switches" that go both directions -- Information DESIGNED in the genetic code! Your friend, with a "degree in biology" is only parroting what she was taught in evolutionary biology class. A "significant" portion of cases of "beneficial" mutations are those that are engineered by humans -- with a great bit of INTELLIGENCE -- by DESIGN. When a mutation in the wild is beneficial, it is a mutation that turns off a switch in genetic information allowing for survival in a particular environment. Through several generations, the ability of the "new" species becomes unable to survive anywhere else since it looses the "switch" in the process. --SouthWriter 21:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think evolution is evidence that God is not needed. ProfessorMcG 20:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you do not think that God is not needed, for you proclaim that God is behind it all. However, to maintain this, you have to disregard evidence to the contrary, i.e., evidence from DESIGN. Also, you cannot take His revealed word seriously if those who are supposed to be trusted, like Jesus and His apostles, are said to believe that same record. You can't have it both ways. I challenge you again, look at the evidence -- what do you see? If you had to explain it only from what you see, what conclusion would you come to? --SouthWriter 21:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though the format isn't as easy to work with, I will be moving all this discussion over to the blog entry. There, a give and take, is easier to follow. SouthWriter 21:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though the format isn't as easy to work with, I will be moving all this discussion over to the blog entry. There, a give and take, is easier to follow. SouthWriter 21:26, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to but in here but this is a great debate :) GOPZACK 23:44, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Zack. I appreciate your support. I saw your entry on the blog, but only after I reloaded th page. I spent the evening answering earlier posts. When the blog starts repeating itself, I'll "close discussion" and move on to another subject. :-)

SouthWriter 03:54, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a thought South =)


 * There is always two sides to a story. And you can never be sure of yourself until you hear the other side. Because when you hear the other side of the story, you know where the other person is coming from. But also, I think that you can never truly know someone. You may think you know what they think and how they think but you never will. The best way to understand someone, I think, is to love them. When you love them you see their faults and yet you don't judge them for it. You take their faults and you are still willing to work with them. This is the best way to show God to someone. God has un-ending love. Even to people who don't believe God, we are all his creations and he loves us for it. So when you try to show someone God you have to show them God's love with your love. This makes the person trust you and gives them confidence to believe in you because they know you have their best interests at heart. ProfessorMcG 17:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, Kevin. I hope that my words to you at your talk page and at my blog display the love of God to you in your situation. A consistent "theistic evolution" will drive you from the faith you now confess, or at least it has driven the majority of children that leave the church when they are graduated from high school. I urge you to seek out as much information "from the other side" of the creation debate, putting on "Christian glasses" as it were, to see the evidence from a point of view aligned with the Word of God. And may you "graduate" with honors from being "Professor" to "Confessor"! :-) SouthWriter 17:59, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I confess that I have been doubtful in the past few years. Maybe that is why it is so easy for me to accept theistic evolution, I have to get back on God's path. I leave for Leadership Lab, a Lutheran camp in 2 weeks. It should be fun and give me some good new insight. ProfessorMcG 18:09, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

My prayers are with you, Kevin. May God be with you as you study His Word. Beware of the "words of men" that will surely taint even the best camp programs. SouthWriter 18:39, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Answers
Trust me, there's a reason why Jehovah's Witnesses are looked down upon as a cult. I've always been suppressed and brainwashed in everything normal kids that age do; I couldn't play outside with friends (You don't need them, they will only try to take our son away and force immorality onto our household!), I had to suppress my interest in politics (God, Jesus and the 144,000 "chosen ones" are the only just party to rule the world!), warfare (Leave the killing to God!) history, reading (The only history you need to read is in the "Good Book"!) and of course gaming (Those "games" are created by the devil himself!). And yes, those actually are quotations of my parents, directed at me. Hell, even my older sister was held on such a short leash that she left the house in desperation at the age of sixteen and lived a life of prostitution and drug abuse until she was 19.

That was why I was actually glad that my parents divorced when I was 15. Their "sphere of influence" so to say, was finally broken and when my mother met a new guy and was excommunicated by the Witnesses (The only thing allowed to break a relation is death.) I turned my back on the religion and on her. I did literally everything that they had forbidden me. Drinking, hanging out with friends, having sex for the first time, smoking, doing drugs and so on. Her boyfriend died in 2008 and my mother collapsed without her faith to fall back on, so she made apologies and returned to the Witnesses without me. I left the house a few weeks after my 18th birthday, moved into an apartment with my current girlfriend and to be honest, life without God treats me very well. In conclusion, I just don't think I need and feel Him in my life and you know as well as me that you have to feel Him inside your heart and soul to believe.

Sorry to leave my life story on your talk page, but I just had to explain this way, why I really don't believe in Him and where my general dislike for religions comes from. Perhaps, later in my life I will feel some kind of void only He can fill, but that's just not now. --XterrorX 20:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yours is indeed a horror story, Noél, and I can see why you took the opportunity to be free of such oppression. However, the fears your parents had were somewhat justified -- as you proved when you had your "fling" upon moving out. I trust that you got most of that "out of your system," as you seem to have "settled down" for now. You do have it right about some day feeling the void -- that is the story of many who choose a life without God. It is "learning the hard way" which I would wish on no one. Though you may think it worthless, I will keep you in my prayers. SouthWriter 20:53, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

OTL and TTL
I know very well the difference, but when I am editing, I sometimes find little typos like that. It seems that I have been doing it frequently, so I guess I really did forget the difference. If you could point where I wrote it out, that would be nice. Arstarpool 15:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I saw the error more than once, though, the one at the "science & technology" talk page is the only one that comes to mind right now, and you've got that covered. Since we don't use the abbreviation in articles very often, I suppose we can get away with an occasional slip up on talk pages and blogs. However, I'll keep my eyes open for any such slip ups "in public." :-)


 * SouthWriter 16:56, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Central World
Hi Southwriter might you create an article for Central World ! Please Answer Me, VENEZUELA 15:13, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Self-Promotion
...Whatever. There have been many people who have nominated their own articles. Venezuela's Perez Himenez's Venezuela, a work that bores most, was nominated by the creator. Arstarpool 18:42, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be a lot better over at your talk page, but I REALLLY hate bouncing back and forth that way. A 'work that bores most' is not likely to be featured without some kind of promotion. The better ones, though, will recieve recognition because of their quality and/or readership. If a creator promoted himself it detracts from that quality. It is far better for either a reader nominate an article or that an administrator do it (randomly for 'fairness,' with the option to bring up another if the article(s) don't get much traffic). SouthWriter 20:26, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

IRC
This is sort of an IM thing that Smallpox and Vegas found, I checked it out and it's pretty cool.

Go to http://webchat.freenode.net/

write your nickname

type "wikia_ah" (remove quotation marks) in the channel box

enter, and party.

Pass it on.

BoredMatt 14:24, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

PS me and EE found the layout a bit confusing, you type in the text bar at the bottom of the screen.

Privacy, Please
I found this little message on Fx's page:

"Alex (Arstarpool) is a mere teenager".

A teenager can be anywhere from 13 - 18, so I can be an adult very soon for all you know, or I can just be getting into the 8th grade, as well.

Either way, on this site I am not Alex the Teenager. I am not whoever I am in real life, for that is in real life. I crack jokes, as you have most likely seen on my user page, but just because I am a teenager does not mean I am a moody pot-smoking brat of one.

You really do not know who I am, regardless of what you read on my talk page, so I ask you this, as your first and last warning, do not share my information anywhere else besides my talk page. Ever. Arstarpool 06:48, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * YOU, young man, have proudly posted that information along with your "rank" graciously given to you in this wiki. That information is just as open as any other page on this wiki. I posted this of Fxgentleman's talk page for the very purpose of privacy. I was, if you read whole post, writing to encourage the man in his battle against your unreasonable demands. He has shown remarkable patience with you. I can only emphasize with him, since it is not MY article that you have attacked almost from the day you joined this wiki.


 * Of course, Alex, you are only the persona which you project on you talk page - and it only that persona which I can deal with. I will attach "seems to be" to all private remarks about you from now on. It is a shame that you have to present a false picture of who you are though. SouthWriter 14:25, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I should just note that Arstarpool did post these things in a public forum and if he didn't want people to read about them he never should have posted them. --GOPZACK 06:56, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And you said it before I did! SouthWriter 14:25, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have grown quite fond of ProfessorMcG, South, who has shared his age with you, so your recent criticisms must be something personal with me. Arstarpool 07:07, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not "personal," Alex, though the attitude in your recent posts do seem to display a rather "unlikable" fellow. The reason I brought up your age is because I am cutting you some slack. Regardless of whether you are 13 or 17, your mind is still developing, and you have a long way to go before you are an adult (physiologically around 25).


 * The exhanges between Kevin (McG) and myself were of a more serious matter than your rambling on about your new authority, Alex. He is at a tender age at which many dangerous ideas are being thrown at him (he revealed his age openly, by the way) and I was offering mature adult advice. SouthWriter 14:25, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey South, I would like this issue to end sooner than later, so if you can, would you please head over to http://webchat.freenode.net/ where we can talk real time? As your username type in whatever and the channel is "wikia_ah". I just think a real-time chat would be better since we wouldn't have to rely on pesky conflicting edits. Arstarpool 17:06, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey South, I would like this issue to end sooner than later, so if you can, would you please head over to http://webchat.freenode.net/ where we can talk real time? As your username type in whatever and the channel is "wikia_ah". I just think a real-time chat would be better since we wouldn't have to rely on pesky conflicting edits. Arstarpool 17:06, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yank and the "East Coast Empire"
Hey, Henry. Would you mind helping me out in reviewing Yank's "? Since you have long been a critique of his article, would you mind helping me get it fit into a more plausible canon? I have yet to officially ask for a review, mostly because I have already criticized his article much, but comment on Virginia's talk page and help me point out some of the other flaws. Arstarpool 17:33, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Alex, I am honored that you wish my input. However, The Virginian Republic is one of the longest standing canonized articles. As implausible as it may have been, it has met the consensus test . Yes, I have critiqued the VR, but I have come to accept it as the will of the majority. When Yank posts something that the VR is doing, many of us just roll our eyes and say, "what now?" but it is almost always in character with the "tough love" persona he has built from the West Virginian hill country.
 * Your duties as a constable do not include policing the plausibility of articles, but rather to police articles for vandalism and talk pages for unwanted intruders (at least I think that is what a troll is). Reviewing articles for plausibility (and thus continuing status as canon) is the job of Lieutenants and Brass. I will continue to read and comment on articles in this wiki, but I have not been authorized to interfere with the creative work of the editors. The only editing I do on other folks' work is for grammar, spelling, and an occasional formatting to make them easier to read. SouthWriter 18:45, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

The guy have himself tanks. That is by far the most exaggerated thing on the article.

I have posted a lot of things that Yank needs to change, yet he counter attacks me with "the 101st and their militia did this" the 101st and their militia built tanks", "the 101st took over 10% of the former US". Reviews HAVE been posted before without someone being Lieutenants or Brass. Gopzack, your "buddy" sent his own article to hell because apparently I had "ruined South Florida" before he had ANY rank whatsoever.


 * GOPZack is not my "buddy," though he has written rather balanced articles, as far as I have seen. Reviews are fine, and that is not what I was talking about concerning rank. The "Brass" created the "Lieutenant" rank to do a lot of their leg work as the wiki began to grow. Any permanent decisions as to the status of an article still has to go through the Brass, though I am sure that it is often just "rubber stamped" or let stand. Most articles are probably just left alone anyway. --SouthWriter 20:06, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it had met the "consensus test" when it was graduated, but did you know that it now controls all of Virginia not controlled by Delmarva? He has snuck in a lot of other pieces of land when nobody was looking, and has essentially made the entire east coast, even GEORGIA into part of the "Dixie Alliance", an organization that is truly run by Virginia to puppeteer the rest of North America. Arstarpool 18:57, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you are questioning my judgment based on my agreement with GOPZack while you are attacking the one person who is standing up for your California article. I have followed Yank for a long time, and I have seen his mood swings. If you are not careful you will lose his support in your battle for Lake Tahoe.
 * He has not been able to make any unwilling nation to be a part of the Dixie Alliance, though he is making overtures. GOPZack's Kentucky and surrounding "puppet states" (to use a popular, though inaccurate, term) are the only members of the DA right now. He has taken over part of western Tennessee in the name of the DA, but has been unable to make headway with Eastern Tennessee or western North Carolina (Blue Ridge). He has, though, the right to "take over" all of Virginia, since the VR is the successor state to Virgina. ::Delmarva, with its tiny corner of coastal Virgina, only survives because it obtained independence prior to the VR's expansion. I doubt, though, that it will become part of the DA, for it is the work of FXgentleman - a man with a different outlook to survival of Doomsday than does Yank. --SouthWriter 20:06, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hepburn
AHH! I knew I forgot to edit something. I had meant to turn that into her legacy, with her sons running the agency. Fixed it.

Lordganon 04:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

EMP
Yeah, I learned a while ago to check as many "unregistered contributor" edits as possible ;) - Mister Sheen 18:25, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Just so ya know I blocked the vandal for three days. If he/she returns I'm block the user for longer. Insert non-formatted text here --GOPZACK 02:21, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

A Question
Hey, just a quick curious question, how come the only thing on your user page is an obsolete article of a man called Jibril? Why don't you update it to show your recent works? It also works as a good navagating tool to your other articles if you need to make an edit. If you want I could fill it in for you. Arstarpool 03:10, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. But I think the "User Page" is a place where I tell about myself. I am not really sure how that article got placed there, myself. My "Home Page" is full of stuff I've marked to follow (too full, in fact). I usually navigate around without much of a problem once I'm on the wiki. I will take that article off my "user" page, though, because it certainly has no revelance to anything I am doing right now. SouthWriter 14:39, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia
Hi Southwriter i write because:

Well I original contributed to the Georgia article (I added a lot) and asked Vladivostok to add the military and the Economy.

Then...

As the caretaker of Georgia, you do not have my permission to have a LoN command there. I kicked you out of the Georgia article, anyways. Arstarpool 01:51, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

So I decided to delete what I add and to delete what I ask Vladivostok to add and create my own article.

So please might you change it and do it better please? VENEZUELA


 * Venezuela, its a copy of an existing article. According to the Editorial Guidelines, this article has to go.


 * To South, read what I posted on Zack's talk page to see the whole story. Arstarpool 17:36, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, Alex, I went over the history of the article. You plainly were the rightful control over the article. Vene's intrusion on the page, though helpful, does not give him control over the article. It was not proper etiquette to kick him off that way, though. He was in the midst of writing articles about all the surrounding republics, and thus landed in Georgia by default. The tit-for-tat between you two is very unprofessional.


 * His new article does not meet editorial guidelines, and thus should indeed be deleted. His reaction to your preemptive banning him, though, is reasonable. I did not see in the history where he "blanked out" your work, but rather just removed what he had put up. He had messed up the map, but I added labels to his version along with coloration to make the location of Georgia clearer.


 * That being said, I'll get back to the original post. Obviously, Vene, I can't help you on the article. Leave the article for Fede and Arstar. They seem to know where it is going. Concentrate on making your article on Venezuela the best you can. And then, get to work on creating other articles on South America, a place you know very well. --SouthWriter 18:02, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hey, South. There is something I want to talk to you about. It has nothing to do with the wiki, but after you once helped out McG with a problem of his I think that you could do the same for me. I just feel I need a "Type 2" opinion, meaning an opinion from someone who I do not know. It's a pretty major issue in my life at the moment, and I want to make sure that I can get a "neutral" answer from somebody. Before I tell you what it is, I want to make sure that you can help me out before I post my problem here for all the world to see.

Arstarpool


 * Sure, man. In fact, why don't you head over to facebook and message me. I am on the 1983DD facebook page, member name Henry Martin. That way you can message me and I can deal with you one on one.


 * I look forward to your questions. My apologies to McG for not thinking of it with him. :-/ SouthWriter 04:24, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the IP address that posted the response is not SouthWriter. Maybe it is you, South, but you might not be logged in. Arstarpool 05:03, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I had fixed that before you got to it. You probably didn't leave the page before resoponding a half hour later. Any way, you're correct. It was me, though the IP address didn't look right. I doubt if anyone would take the trouble to give find out my real name to bug me with messages from Facebook. I wish you'd just gone to facebook like I suggested. Now we both have to wait a bit longer for an answer to your question. SouthWriter 13:26, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have a problem with speaking here, it's just that I was afraid to post it here and then you don't respond and everyone else reads it. Anyways...If you didn't know already I have been in Costa Rica for two months. I am nearing the end of my trip now, but yet there has been some occurances that have nearly made me change my flight! Think of it as a "girl" issue. I have come here every year, I know a lot of people, yet this year I met this girl... Anyways, here is where the problem comes in. All my friends here, white Hispanics, do not approve of this Mestizo Niaraguan chick, as the Costa Ricans deeply hate Mestizos similar to the Blacks before in the USA. Nevertheless, I submited to my testosterone and pursued this girl, who does not attend high school! I have heard rumor after rumor about this person, I really do not care. Either way, I once again "gave into the testosterone". I am leaving soon but I may change my flight to leave a week later, and I will be "home alone" if I do. I was warned many times by some of this chick's "escapades", but yet I really did not care at all and decided to only do what I WANTED. Please give me your advice, South. Arstarpool 16:29, August 5, 2010


 * You have fairly well self-diagnosed your problem, Alex, and ancient wisdom - from many sources I'm sure though mine comes from the Bible, gives the best advice -- "Flee youthful lusts." In other words, run away from that situation as fast as you can. There is a reason why legal codes in all "civilized" nations forbid marriage until the late teens, or later. The hormones in both the young man and the young woman are years ahead of the mind, over-ruling the reason and logic that keeps you, on better days, from making foolish decisions.


 * I am sure scientists would tell us that this behavior is to assure that the race is continued in times of severe conditions in which each new baby improves the chances of survival. In fact, in the Bible the command to the first parents, and then to the children of Noah, was to have children. It makes sense. But in today's world, especially in one that could probably not care any less about divine commands OR the survival of the human race, this tendency to "mate" has become a prime source of entertainment. And more and more it is turning into a "death match" - with the risk of disease being part of the thrill of the "game." It is not moral, ethical, or in many cases even legal. It should therefore be avoided by all rational adults and all compliant minors.


 * Rumors being as they are, you are free to disregard the verity of them if you wish. But when it comes to affairs of the "heart" - or more than likely of the sensual desires of the body - a lack of knowledge can be disaster. Even if this girl were a virgin who just happened to be of mixed heritage, your attraction and affairs with her would not be a good thing for you in this situation. If you stay in Costa Rica, without the oversight of your parents, chances are against things being "better." Make that flight, leave your new friend to wait for your return next summer. Promise to stay in touch, and see where that leads. But by all means leave.


 * I would be remiss, though, if I did not at least point out the reason I showed interest in Kevin (aka Professor McG). He confesses faith in Jesus Christ as savior. That makes him my "brother" in the "family of God." This is a beautiful concept unfolded in the New Testament. There are glimpses of this concept throughout the Old Testament as well, of course, but only when Jesus comes into the picture does it all make sense.


 * Basically, you have obvious knowledge that you have a "problem." Your own body's chemicals are causing you to do things that you perceive are bad for you. On top of that, you admit that you like it that way, for you are doing what you "WANT TO DO." The Bible says that this can lead to death (Prov. 5:1-5; Prov. 12:12). It is the way of all men, in fact. It is evident from the earliest days when "reason" begins -- doing things against "better judgment" out of selfishness. Unchecked, such behavior in the very young would undoubtably lead to early death and the extinction of the race. And so, rules are made by those who "know better." Well, God certainly knows better than we do, so His rules are laid down to show us that we are indeed "not perfect."


 * This brings about a bad situation -- mankind likes to live "dangerously" and breaks the rules caring not what is better for them. This is called "SIN." This is an old word which basically means not being good enough. In sports, few athletes actually "score" while playing the game. It archery, and later in marksmanship, the goal of "hitting the bullseye" is quite allusive. In fact, it takes some skill to even hit the target!! But God is different from us in that he is perfect, and he wants those he takes into his family to be perfect as well. He wants us to win the game, scoring the points when we try. But we can't because we are "only human."


 * So God "makes the play" for each of us on his team. He did this by "joining the team" and giving his all. That in essense, is what Jesus Christ did. He won the "game" we call life by first dying on the cross. He defeated the enemy that holds sway over the "other team" -- that team is known collectively as "death." Sure we "die" in this world, but it is to a larger life that is quite glorious. It is the life to which Jesus arose that glorious Sunday morning almost two thousand years ago.


 * God is actively "recruiting" members for his "team." And when he "drafts" a new player, that player becomes a "member of the family." Each one chosen by God has all the rights of children, the same "rights" around the house as Jesus. Each member of the family is enabled, by virture of being adopted, to win the "game" in which he finds himself in the arena of the enemy. We win even without the "home court" advantage.


 * Kevin and I are members of God's family. That is why I felt comfortable enough to give him the attention I did. We are "on the bench" awaiting our turn in the game. I do not know which team you are on, Alex, but it seems that you are "losing" in the game you are playing right now. You need to consider the options.


 * Contact me at my facebook account and we can "talk" more. Until then, Grace and Peace in God.

SouthWriter 19:41, August 5, 2010 (UTC) I have been raised in a Roman Catholic house since birth. While I am not devout I follow the word of God and I am a regular Church-goer. I have attended private, Catholic school since kindergarden. I have never been exposed to such things that the Public-School goers have, such as drugs, prostitution, sex, alchohol and cigarretts etc, but yet I have heard tales from friends at school and such.

At one point you wrote marriage and such is not until the late teens. According to Costa Rican law, the age of marriage and age of consent is 15 I believe. I have to admit though, the middle-class private school life bores me at times, yet I have never considered dropping out of school or such.

Around here, South, nobody lives in filth and extreme poverty. It is the "Switzerland of the Wetsern Hemisphere", yet many people do not attend high school and even fewer attend college. Yet some of the people I know are determined to get a good education and others just want to get out of school. That does not mean they are bad people, but the "Nicaraguan Problem" as the people call it is similar to the days of Segregation.

As I have heard, the woman I am talking to you about was in a "unlawful marriage" back in Nicaragua. Now these are rumors, and no way I can confirm they are true but I have heard similar stories from several people. That does not bother me, as I am one that will give people a chance before I ostracize them. Yet my friends here all thought I was stupid for being attracted to a "redskin".

I have decided to let this matter alone, as the quicker I get out the better. It will not be a problem for me when I leave here so I will just let it be. Arstarpool 20:02, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that my first sentence of "advice" was probably all you needed - confirming what you had decided. However, in speaking of "marriage" laws and "civilization," I was speaking in general terms, with no thought of what the case may be in Costa Rica. The point was that there is a maturinng of the human brain that takes longer than human sexuality does. The age in the USA, without permission, varies. But I believe in general it is 18 for men and 16 for young women. But I have not studied that.


 * I am sorry I restored this here, if it was your desire to have changed your mind. However, please leave it here so that others might profit from the advice. And the invitation remains in place. Contact me privately whenever you feel like it.


 * SouthWriter 20:32, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Unified Florida
If you are receiving this message you are a contributor to both the and. I would like to notify you that I plan to do what Brian has been doing with his Texas articles and eventually have a unified Florida comprised of two exclaves connected by the Gulf of Mexico. If you have any objections or would like more land to go under Floridian control please tell me.

PS: This is not something that will happen overnight, but I do plan to make the article here and soon. Arstarpool 20:37, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The original "plan" of the North Florida proposal, by one young "Perryz," was approximately the same thing. Zack and I began helping him when you slapped "nominated for deletion" tag. Of course, this is within any of our rights, and we subsequently saved the article (after inadvisedly changing the name from North Florida). The flag, by the way was never changed to "Gainesville" (the effort was to much for my limited abilities).


 * The difference between your intended article and Brian's efforts is that Brian created all the articles that he is seeking to consolidate into one state (with borders approximate to the original state). You, on the other hand, have stepped in to attempt to guide the development of areas already created. Your original interest in South Florida, for sure, showed promise, since you live there, but even then, you have made debatable changes that have often been countermanded by others.


 * Zack and I had kept both Floridas alive for months, and hope to revive them as time permits. But the proposed "Republic of Florida" by an essentially "third party" is not a wise project to attempt at this time. It is far better to take some aspect of Florida life, as you perceive it might be after Doomsday, and concentrate on developing paragraphs and separate articles on those areas. One area you might be best at is the arear of education. Presently in school, you can better relate to that. Small business and communications, two of the most important areas of survival, are also worth exploring.

SouthWriter 21:50, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * To say, I am quite offended. I am NOT a "third party" of the South Florida article. Most of it was in fact filled in by me! And I admit I have contributed not that much (but I have a little) to the Gainesville article, and I am in fact the one who officially caretakes the article. (I was the one who approached Perryz, you guys just took it over)
 * Do not act like you and Gopzack are the "main" contributors while I am just some side-liner who writes in. Again do not act like you solely saved it from being abandoned. According to the history of the article, most of the edits were in fact made by me. I in fact started the discussion that led to the creation of the South Florida article, and then Zack approached me on working on it.
 * If you had even read my message I wrote that "this will not happen overnight". This is a planned nation that will eventually happen in the near future by an eventual unification between Gainesville and South Florida, and any other lands that want to join the fray.
 * The Republic of Florida is going to be an official governing body of the two Floridas upon completion, as is the "Republic of Spain" now officially governs Pais del Oro and the Spanish National Republic, but the unification of currencies, government, military, and economy is not going to happen just yet.
 * Most of my "debatable" changes to South Florida are in fact small and fixed easily. Its not like I had South Florida taking over Cuba and stuff.
 * Just give me your verdict, and a one-worded one on your green light to using two of our articles. Yes or no? Arstarpool 23:51, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Do quotation marks not carry any meaning in this format? Those are known as air quotes, Arstar, and were meant to indicate a minor player. I admit, you added quite a lot, and I, really am a "third party" there. My role has been to keep things plausible and to correct spelling and grammar. The article on South Florida is basically Zack's work. I couched my remarks with qualifiers only after reviewing the whole history. I also reviewed "Gaineville," though I just now checked the discussion. That was Perryz's article which he "turned over" to us. It was you to whom he last remarked. But, I stand by my statements. My verdict was in my advice, which plainly is in the negative for the proposal. So, in a word NO. --SouthWriter 01:06, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm gonna just say I'm Perryz101, I haven't spoke about it, seeing as that I diden't like the name I had, and that I could forget my failed work. But seeing this, really makes me kinda sad inside. I haven't been on much, I've worked on the Dixie Alliance and its flag and map, but nothing really. Kinda a slap to the face seeing my own idea I had a long time ago, and now being used by some one else.--Sunkist- 03:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't hurt too much, Sunkist, for you volunteeringly turned it over to whoever would work on it. I tried to help you make your Republic of Indiana (done as Perryz101), when you went over to that one. I see you liked Florida enough to take a new name that reflects that, though. Anyway, six months is not a "long time ago." I hope you can get the feel for this time line and be contributing for a long time to come. SouthWriter 05:01, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Hey Perryz, long time no see! There is something I want to talk to you about, this "North Florida" article. I know you turned it over to GOPZACK, but you still have power over it to a certain extent. I remember that you told me that you want to unify Florida, and I did not take that very well. You have no knowledge of Florida, seeing you are a "Hoosier", you should work on Indiana more. Since I and GOPZACK created South Florida, the one that came first, him and I both agreed that there will be no combined nation. I am giving you several options: You may mark it as obsolete, and It will not be deleted, but It will never become canon, you may delete it."-Arstarpool. some harsh words that I soon replyed with and stormed off, "Do whatever with North Florida" and then left the wikia for a few days.--Sunkist- 05:12, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

To see the rest go to my old page, Perryz101--Sunkist- 05:16, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sunkist, first I'd like to thank you for your contributions to the Dixie Alliance page it is appreciated.

As for the North Florida/Gainesville situation it was a very bizarre situation. Arstar wanted the article deleted if the name was kept "North Florida" so I changed it to Gainesville which it is now. The rest of the content on the paged stayed exactly the same save the name change. To quote Winston Churchill, Arstar is "a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma." --GOPZACK 05:31, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Why couldent it be called North Florida?, The people of the nation called it North Florida, for it being in the northern part of Florida...--Sunkist- 05:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, and I may be wrong Arstar said you as "Perryz101" wouldn't approve because me and South "stole" it from you or some strange theory like that. --GOPZACK 05:41, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think ya'll did great on the page, and I do indeed like the page, and kept away from it, seeing that it was in good hands. But..if it wasent going to be able to become one nation in the past, why should it now?--Sunkist- 05:47, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

You diden't steal if from me..I saw a failed page, and you turned it around.--Sunkist- 05:51, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I do agree on unified Florida, seeing as it would be the best for the two, I would really like to help on it, if I could. I've also began somthing that I would like to get help on..Arstarpool and GOPZACK, check out The Republic of The First Coast, time to forget all of this drama and get a powerful unified Florida!--Sunkist- 23:39, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Read my newest blog and someone please write on the 1983DD talk page that my computer broke and I wont be on for a while except occasionally like this. Arstarpool 01:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia (Rome)
South, I went ahead and created a page for the state of Georgia associated with the Muscle Shoals CSA based out of Rome. I remember you writing some things about it on the Georgia (U.S. state) (1983: Doomsday) page, so I would think you'd want to take a shot at the new proposal. Let me know if you want to use it. BrianD 01:59, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Brian. I'll work up a info box and bring over the history "so far" as mentioned in the Georgia (U.S. state) article. You can move over the involvement with the CSA. The recent changes in the Tennessee and Blue Ridge pages, along with the new interest in bringing the restored USA up to date, show promise in "redeeming" this continent in TTL. I'm hoping prehaps the other states of CSA that are surviving might also be leaning toward the restorted USA as it makes overtures in the coming months. I hope Louisiana and the Mississippi city-states might also consider the USA's offer as well. SouthWriter 17:56, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll need to edit it down. I'll try to get to it asap. BrianD 18:00, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * All I have to do is cut and paste. :-)
 * But I will make sure I do that before you get your editing done. Thanks again for creating the page. I am going to put together the Neonotia proposal some time soon as well (it not having the advantage of independent mention as the other Georgian "states" have had. --SouthWriter 18:20, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

ASSA/Oklahoma
I'll leave it for you to create the Alliance of Southern States of America page, since the idea originated with you. I might choose another name for the group though because of the acronym (A....S....S.A). Union of Southern States of America, perhaps? Confederation of Southern States? Southern States of America? I'll also leave it for you and others to create the city state in Oklahoma, although I will help in any way if requested. BrianD 16:40, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

TwoAm ideas
How's it going. Haven't talked in a while, just though I say 'sup. I wanted to let you know some stuff I have been up to. First off, I have decided to replace the flag of the CSA with the Blood Stained banner, as I personally do not favor the stats and bars for a nation not being welcomed by the nation they are trying to keep ties with. Another idea I was thinking about was maybe adding a new state to the Confederacy. I have been doing some reading on the State of Sequoyah, and I think the CSA might be in favor of having two states in OTL Oklahoma, instead of one big one. What do you think? --NuclearVacuum 19:11, August 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just another idea that popped in my head. What if the CSA would keep the "Las Vegas" area. Since I can't figure out how Hoover Dam would work in this timeline, if Northern Nevada and Southern Arizona have no relations. If the CSA kept the region, than Hoover Dam could become all Confederate. --NuclearVacuum 19:14, August 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I am going to retract my last message. After doing some reading, only the Arizona territory (the area south of the 34th parallel). From what I can make out, the remainder of the New Mexico Territory did not wish anything from the Confederate States. Maybe the northern part of the Territory would become the Union States of New Mexico (or something like that), while the southern portion would become the Confederate State of Arizona. --NuclearVacuum 00:52, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am doing pretty good for an old guy. Are you going with the traditional white banner, or the new gray and red I showed you? I thought it looked neat, but I'm biased. I don't see any reason why the Sequoyah state would not work. The blue bloods of New England have run American politics for ages, and that was no problem in the CSA. In 1905 Francis Cockrell would have been president in TTL. He was a Roosevelt appointee in OTL and negotiated borders in New Mexico. Since he was from the frontier state of Missouri, and a Senator from there until elected president in TTL, I think he'd be friendly to the petition from the Native Americans.


 * I wrote these notes as you were composing your retraction. But I will leave it as written since it follows the existing map of the CSA that you have on site.


 * As far as the Hoover Dam is concerned, we have to consider whether the CSA would have the funds for such a project. Besides that, it would be taking water from the Colorado River, which begins in Colorado -- Above the 37th parallel international border. Given that Arizona, which shares half of the federal project with Nevada in OTL, did not approve the project until AFTER it was completed, I doubt if the CSA would have planned the project. I think it is fair to say that some other sight would have been chosen by the US government for a project of this size.


 * However, the use of the 37th parallel as a national boundary does present a problem if the two nations do not get along well. Keeping it guarded might have proved a hardship on both nations (but especially the US). It would have been nice to have grabbed not just Las Vegas, but also southern California. Nevada, by the way, was a civil war era addition that did not have much of a Confederate presence. It would be problematic to take the tip of it, especially with a natural boundary for about half its border with Arizona. Perhaps the two countries would have agreed to do the project together, only starting it in the late 40's. It could have been a project to help bring the two nations together. --SouthWriter 01:35, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant
Hey Henry I was wondering if your interested in becoming a Lieutenant here on this wiki. I've nominated you for the position so get back to me when you can. --GOPZACK 19:23, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Zack. I would be honored to serve the Wiki in this way. SouthWriter 16:06, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

1983's Greece
Hello SouthWriter,
 * Recently I've come out of my periodic hibernations due to grumblings over the state of 1983's Federation of Greece. Now I grow tired of 1983:Doomsday and I'd like to keep working only until a suitable candidate for taking over Greece presents himself, but that could be months from now. Now you're much more involved in 1983:Doomsday more than I ever was, and I'd like to ask your help. I mean I have quite a bit of ideas on how Greece is evolving in the universe, but all ideas you have are welcome and I invite you to combine your ideas and mine. Would you like to become a fellow caretaker of the Federation of Greece?

Mr.Xeight 05:38, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not really been following what has been happening in Europe, so I am not sure I'd be much help in "running" the article on Greece. However, I'll peruse the article and its talk page to see what the problems are and give you my take on it.SouthWriter 16:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Electoral College
Can you explain to me in laymans terms how the US Electoral College system works, please? HAD 20:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, here goes. In the beginning days of the United States, to preserve the integrity of the states as sovereign entities and to simplify the tabulation of the several states, they set up commissions in each state to stand in for the populace of said state. To this day, the votes for the president and vice president - and no others - are actually votes for the "electors" who are required by convention to cast their votes for the winner of their states in a meeting in December following the election in November. Any states which are "undecided" in November (for whatever reason) will have been settled by the meeting.


 * Occasionally, an elector will vote with the district rather than the state, or perhaps cast a protest vote in an election which is otherwise not up for debate. Theoretically, such an individual, or a group of individuals, could throw an election into a tie, putting the election in the hands of the Senate where each state has only one vote - that being the "winner" in each particular state. Since the states would all then be equal, the large states would be at mercy of the smaller states, which out number them.


 * Basically it is an extention of "representative" government into the election of the president as the sole "national" leader. Since America is a "representative republic" rather than a strict "democracy" the populace depends on the wisdom of those whom they elect to do the right thing. This system has ancients roots in societies such as ancient Israel and ancient Rome. Systems of "elders" and "senates" were put in place to allow quick and necessary decisions to be made by a group rather than an indidual such as a king or president.


 * I hope that helps a little. SouthWriter 22:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Remnant
I have been given permission from Zack, the caretaker of the ECF, to do what I please with the Virgin Islands. Also remember that the ECF is a fairly small article and does not give explicit info on the requirements on membership. So as long as USAR remains autonomous, all is well. Arstarpool 03:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to my clock, it just hit midnight. That means this will be short.


 * I am just stating my concerns about the direction of this new article of yours. It is threatening to throw a whole new dynamic to the whole Atlantic community. If you have not read it yet, please read what I have done with the American diaspora article. I have tried to introduce your article in a gentle way, though my "version" is not as grand as yours. My edit, though inside a canonized article, is certainly open for review and challenge. But please consider my concerns before demanding too much of your new "nation." Let it surfice that these Americans remain Americans for the duration.
 * And here's to the soon reunion with the others on the continent who dream the same dream. Sweet dreams, Alex. I'll catch you later. SouthWriter 04:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Indiana
I would like to see this articles speedy graduation so as i was interested in adopting this page would you moderate -Sunkist- edits and provide constructive criticism --Owen1983 13:49, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. You are adopting obsolete articles, soliciting editors to clean them up, in order to get "graduated" articles to your credit. Is that about right?


 * Sunkist (once known as PerryZ) created this article and floundered until it became impossible to get out of the proposal stage due to conflicts with canon and general plausibility problems. Having returned as Sunkist, he now considers the article his, with you as "caretaker." But the administration of this wiki considers you a trouble maker. I have not seen much of a problem with you, but I have been concentrating mostly just on the former US, so I have a limited exposure to the rest of the 83DD world.


 * If I moderate the development and eventual graduation of this article, it is going to be a viable article - using real people and Rep_of_Indiana_damage.png-state resources to reclaim as much of the state as possible within a reasonable timescale. I need to see an orderly proposal as to what happened when, and by whom. I hope Sunkist can provide you with facts about real people who have a good probability of having been in Indiana in "safe" cities in 1983. I don't have time to do the research. I suggest a rough outline of the history since doomsday first. Seeing that, then we can construct what the present situation of the state would be.


 * Be sure to keep in mind the development of Toledo, Superior, and Kentucky, while deciding what to include. Such things as a return of mass communications and contact with the outside world need to be quite far along in the timeline as well. I will not be facilitating "speedy" graduation of any articles, but rather graduation of quality articles that fit comfortably within the framework laid down in the past two years. SouthWriter 14:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * To the right is the map based on both the assumed hits and county seats mentioned in Perry's original draft. I list how much would have been destroyed of each of the cities inside the "kill zones."  I did not take into account other activity along the Great Lakes of the north, so conceivably that can be expanded into later in the time line.  Southern Indiana is "claimed" by Kentucky and is off limits. SouthWriter 14:56, August 25, 2010 (UTC) I think expansion into northern Indiana is a good idea also including real people so it becomes Viable--Owen1983 22:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * To the right is the map based on both the assumed hits and county seats mentioned in Perry's original draft. I list how much would have been destroyed of each of the cities inside the "kill zones."  I did not take into account other activity along the Great Lakes of the north, so conceivably that can be expanded into later in the time line.  Southern Indiana is "claimed" by Kentucky and is off limits. SouthWriter 14:56, August 25, 2010 (UTC) I think expansion into northern Indiana is a good idea also including real people so it becomes Viable--Owen1983 22:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
You are now a Lieutenant in the TSPTF. This allows you to showcase the TSPTF membership badge on your user page. Furthermore it gives you administrator powers on this wiki. I would like to spend sometime discussing those powers:


 * You should now notice a red button at the top of every article with the word "Delete". You can use this to delete articles, obviously. Use this power sparingly and always stay within the framework of the Deletion Policy. The policy itself was passed with little discussion, so if you have any suggestions or comments regarding it I would be glad to hear it.
 * You can also block users from editing. This can be done by clicking on the History page for articles or the Contributions tab on editor's user pages. Again, use this sparingly. This is our most destructive tool. We don't have a policy on this, but there is a general custom that has been followed: always assume good faith with edits (unless obviously vandalism), warn before blocking (try using the three strikes approach) and start with short block durations for first time offendors.
 * You will also notice a button on the top of every article that says "Protect". With this you can prevent certain people from editing a single article. The first level prevents anons and new users from editing an article. The second level limits editing only to administrators. Use this to prevent excessive vanadalism or to prevent edit wars between users.
 * In the History page of an article you will notice a new option called "rollback". This is an anti-vandalism tool. It allows you to quickly undo edits in case someone has made more than one edit to a page. By clicking rollback it will immediately revert the article to a time before the offending editor edited the page.
 * There are other obscure powers that are not used often. If you have any questions on those or the ones I mentioned above, feel free to ask me.

Finally if you go to the TSPTF page, you will notice that we have a list of Responsibilities. In reality, none of us have the time to devote to all of the duties that are expected of an administrator of the wiki. You are expected, however, to sign up for at least three responsibilities listed in that section. These are duties that you are agreeing to carry out to the best of your ability every time you are on this wiki. I'm hoping that by doing this the members of the TSPTF can efficiently share the work load of the wiki and gives us time for the real reason we are here.

Again, congratulations on being elected to the TSPTF and good luck. Mitro 15:13, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Reagan Administration Officials
Hey South would like to join me & help determine which Reagan Administration officials were with President Reagan or Vice- President Bush at the time of Doomsday? GOPZACK 02:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a worthy assingmnent. Let's not try to ruffle too many feathers, though. I have already started a history altering ball rolling with the revelation that Reagan had sent sealed instructions to the "shadow government" (especially in Wyoming, but presumedly others as well).


 * We can be sure that some staff were with Reagan in New York. Those staying in the same hotel probably were loaded aboard the helicopter and air-lifted out with him. We just have to figure out who that like would have been. Since Bush was in Washington, a good amount of staff and some Congressional leaders were probably with him as well. I figure Dan Quayle, though a Junior Senator, may have been "lucky" enough to be in the "right place at the right time."


 * The staffers and legislators that made it out with Bush would have to have been met with secret service agents quickly, perhaps even haphazardly. I was just remarking to Sunkist that most legislators were "on their own" on that Sunday evening. Key leaders, though, would probably have been the first to be contacted. In separate cars, and initially to separate facilities, the cabinet members would be evacuated as they could be located. Perhaps even members of the Supreme Court could be rounded up, but this will all have had to take place in the space of about an hour. SouthWriter 02:57, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support your idea of having the Gipper send some instructions to Wyoming. it is canon that Wyoming was in communication with Reagan & seeing as the documents are "secret" (until now anyway) they can be worked in without conflicting with the established parts if this timeline. I look forward to that ball rolling indeed.


 * With Reagan I would think James Baker, his chief of staff would escape with him. Another thing worth exploring is whether there were any members o the NY Congressional delegation with Reagan.


 * With Bush perhaps Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Robert Byrd, Tip O'Neill & Bob Michel (the top "Brass" in Congress at the time) & some of their staff might manage to survive with Bush.


 * Also the plight of cabinet officials should be explored as well. GOPZACK 03:33, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

This all part of why the APA dissolved. It was basically the Federal Government, plus some of the US Pacific States and some of the military. It wasn't a country. I wonder what George H.W Bush thought, being the President of a devastated country.HAD 08:42, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The APA (American Provisional Administration) was not a country, but an administration of bureaucrats that were trying to keep the devastated country together the best they could. In my opinion, they made a mistake moving everything to far away Australia. They had the territories in the western Atlantic that were a lot closer and a friendly country in Jamaica if they needed an infrastructure from which to work. However, Reagan and Bush had six months to access the situation, and had decided that the structure of ANZUS was the best option. Unfortunately for the nation they left behind, the APA could not operate well from a distance.


 * In short, American is a government by the people, not by the bureaucrats. With no link to the people, there was no nation left. It was inevitable that the APA would dissolve. But in the dissolution, there was a continuity clause, and that has played out in the restoration of the United States in the American great plains. SouthWriter 16:15, August 26, 2010 (UTC

I've found another surviving Reagan official in Secretary of State, George P. Shultz who was with Reagan in NYC. I'm afraid Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger is a goner. He was in China at the time & if the nukes didn't get him the chaos would. Even if he did survive he'd have to way to contact Reagan, Bush or really anyone. GOPZACK 02:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good to see that Shultz was tagging along with Reagan. Which brings a question up about who might have been with Reagan and his wife when the plane went down. Would most of his surviving cabinet be traveling separately (to better assure survival of the government)?


 * I just posted a scenario for Sunkist, who wanted a representative of the time to rise to power in Indiana. His version was practically unreadable, and in editing I changed it to be more viable. But in the writing of it I indicated that several members of congress made it to Greenbrier on their own. Many, like Rep. Philip Sharp, chose to attempt to get to their home states in mid-1984. I don't know if he will accept my changes, but hopefully he will at least post a slim downed version of it in place of his original paragraph. SouthWriter 02:30, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that scenario & I quite enjoyed it. Seems that Sunkist has incorporated it into the article.


 * I would think there might be three planes One with Reagan, one with Bush & another with other officials. They could also take a boat I suppose. One other minor note James G. Watt, U.S. Secretary of the Interior at the time, has a fighting chance to make it to Greenbrier. GOPZACK 02:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I really liked Watt. He got a bad wrap for saying what a lot of conservatives were afraid to say. Like I told Sunkist, the trick is to find out which suburb these people lived in. Most of them would not have lived in DC proper. On Sunday night they'd all be safe at home, wherever that was at the time. Those living in Virginia probably had a slight advantage over those in Maryland (but northern Maryland had some "safe spots" as well). SouthWriter 02:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * An update on Watt, a few days before Doomsday he made some controversial remarks that led to his resignation a few weeks later. What needs to me explored is if he went home to Lusk, Wyoming before Doomsday. If (& this is a big if) the folks who established the PUSA had contact with Watt while having no contact with anyone else in the federal government. Watt would be the de-facto President of the United States to the folks in the plains. --GOPZACK 18:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

He obviously wouldn't be President, if those in Wyoming knew Reagan survived. But he could be the representative of Reagan at least to Wyoming. You guys would need to answer how Reagan, knowing that there were people in Wyoming and Texas, STILL decided to leave the homeland (my answer? Reagan's advisors, relying on the conventional belief that a nuclear war would render the US uninhabitable, told the President anyone still alive would eventually die and the entire nation would become a radioactive wasteland. So leave it). You perhaps need to bring in the brass on this, because Reagan and Bush moving to Australia is a very fundamental part of the timeline. --BrianD 19:22, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of all the statements he was criticized for, the one that led to his resignation was probably the least offensive - he simply described a panel, using correct, though not particularly sensitive, terms. He said ""I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."


 * At the time, "black" was permissible, and "Jews" was accurate (though used pejoratively sometimes, and now avoided). The term "cripple" had become "political incorrect," and caused a stir even among Christians. That was on September 21, 1983, less than a week before DD. His resignation became effective on November 9th (OTL). He probably had not yet been pressured to resign before September 25. DD would have broken the news cycle and "saved" his career. He probably ended up arguing with the environmentalists in the ANZC! SouthWriter 19:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, Brian. However, it had already been established that there was contact. It stands to reason, though, that even if Reagan had not spoke with them after the bombs were launched, he had to have talked to them before the fact. He had to give the order to fire the missiles. He and one other official actually. It would have been at this time that the "back up" government would have gotten their sealed orders, to be opened only after confirmation of the dissolution of the existing government.
 * As for why Reagan and Bush would leave, I have to go with the time line here. The administration determined that there were not the resources necessary to "save America" and that the best they could do was operate from a safe place as long as possible. That decision cost the Reagans, their pilots and whatever staff they had own board their lives. Bush simply showed himself incompetent to manage the crisis. SouthWriter 19:56, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Some more updates for you here, Jeane Kirkpatrick US Ambassador to the UN Would have gotten out with Reagan as well. Michael Deaver & Edwin Meese would have gotten away with the President as well.

United States Secretary of the Treasury, Donald Regan also has a decent chance at survival as well. GOPZACK 03:09, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Kirkpatrick makes sense, since Reagan was in NYC to speak at the UN the next day (or was it the day before?). She would probably have been living there, or at least have a place to stay while performing her duties there. I guess you found a list or a report about who was in NYC for the speech on the other two.


 * I always thought the choice of Donald Regan by Ronald Reagan was appropriate just because of the similar names. They could be "twins" (not identical) separated at birth and spelling their last name different! Anyway, that's just me. I suppose you are assuming the staff living in the DC area would have had as much notice as the vice president and have tried to get to Greenbrier on their own [as Rep. Phil Sharp, (D, IN) did]. SouthWriter 15:13, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That Donald Reagan was a pain to research. Every time I entered his name it said "Did you mean, Ronald Reagan?" --GOPZACK 17:01, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * John William Vessey, Jr., the chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff along with the American military command located in D.C. what do you think would become of them South? --GOPZACK 16:50, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that the joint chiefs would have tried to escape, for sure. And the military in D.C. would have moved quickly as well. However, the dangerous work of managing the evacuation of the public probably would have fallen on the local law enforcement. It all depends on the logistics of getting as far from ground zero of the first bomb over the city. How long does it take missiles to cross the North Pole and reach their targets. The AP reports seem to indicate just 36 minutes before every major city had been hit. That is not long to get away.
 * The blasts over the cities of New York, if not simultaneous, would each have a blast zone affecting about 5 miles from the center (assuming a 340 kt bomb). There would be time to evacuate whoever was available by helicopter to a safe distance, I think. That is assuming unaffected electronics with the EMPs from space. The logistics of getting the president's jet in the air after evacuation would be a nightmare, but if the jet was located in a safe location it might have been accomplished even after the first bombs detonated.
 * One thing about big skyscrapers to consider is that they have deep foundations as well. It is conceivable that some might have escaped deep underground. Digging out, though, may have been impossible if there were any ground blasts above those locations. I don't think the creators of the time line took enough into consideration. It is possible that none of the government would have had time to escape, thirty-five minutes is not very much time to get away even with a plan in place. --SouthWriter 18:05, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a page dedicated to the evacuation of the government of the United States and the fate of top government officials. It will help clear up some of the blurry elements of this TL Would you like to give me a hand South? GOPZACK 21:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, Zack. Since everything happened on Sunday evening, we'll have to know where everyone lived in the Washington area. We can assume Reagan's staff and guests were all in the same hotel in New York. You start with getting a list of the staff and the places where the one's mentioned above were. I'll work on figuring out some of the others you list. I'll probably not get to it tonight (it's 5:40 now and I'm about to go out. I might not get back on until tomorrow. SouthWriter 21:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

A definitive record
We don't have to guess about who was with Reagan (well, not altogether anyway). Here is the note from the bottom of the text of what he said at the UN reception that very hour:


 * Note: The President spoke at 7:08 p.m. in the Hilton Room at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick made welcoming remarks and introduced Mayor Edward Koch of New York City and Secretary of State George P. Shultz, who then introduced the President. The reception was hosted by the United States for heads of state, foreign ministers, and heads of delegation to the United Nations session.


 * Following the reception, the President and Mrs. Reagan returned to the Presidential Suite at the hotel, where they remained overnight.

A little bit more searching and we might figure out which "heads of state" may have been there (if any). The heads of the delegations shouldn't be hard to find. --SouthWriter 05:18, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
Hey South, let me be the first in the larger community to congratulate you on your being made Lieutenant of the TSPTF!

I was wondering, however, if you wouldn't mind reading my primary TL, French Trafalgar, British Waterloo, and give me some suggestions or ideas? I'm starting to reach a new part, and I would like some other editors to bring up some ideas that I could use to improve my TL. Thanks! Tbguy1992 03:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I see that you allowed the British to become stronger after being defeated by France in 1805. This leads to a more agressive, and 'meaner' British force against America earlier in the "War of 1812." Now, the British North American colonies can expand across the St. Lawrence (taking Maine) and down into the Lousiana Purchase (which it looks to be denied by "treaty" [aka demands] of the British]. I am doubtful that the British would be that much stronger after being defeated by France (and with France a potential ally of America all along). I will have to have a little time to assimilate myself to your frame of mind. I think that a smaller USA might actually be stronger in the short run, And the British might just stretch themselves a little too thin.


 * However, I'm going to bed -- since I have a long day ahead of me. Later, TB. SouthWriter 04:30, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to but in here but Tbguy1992 may want a different abbreviation of his username then "TB" seeing as that is also short for tuberculoses. But to each's own. --GOPZACK 04:36, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations my friend! You deserve it.HAD 08:44, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations my friend! You deserve it.HAD 08:44, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wars in FTBW
Alright, I'll try to explain it this way: The first American War, (1812-1814) was an American disaster, and the British decided that the the US should be humbled by drawing a line through the Louisiana Purchhase, at about 100 degrees West, and took over the territory to the west of this "Wellington Line", and added it to the Hudson Bay Company's Mandate over Puperts land, but in exchange, allowed American settlers to immigrate and settle for the next 50 years (I didn't add that in the main story, but I'll do that soon), as sorta a balancing effect. America, realizing that they can't stop the UK until they totally reform the army and find alliance, accepts bitterly, but hope that the immigration to this area will ultimatly force Britian to hand over the land.

Now, in the War of the Southwest (1840's) between the US and Mexico, the US got Texas, which wasn't part of the Lousiana purchase (Mexico in ATL having no outside interference from France or Britian until after this War in the 1840's, and became independent of Spain in the 1820's by themselves), and liberated California, which became its own country, the PAcific Republic.

In the Second American War, which was like OTL's Civil War, only that the South won its freedom, Texas became part of the South, which shifted Mexican anger over the previous war from the entire US, to the new CSA, and it formed an alliance with the US.

This next war, the Third American War (1882-1883), the US will try to use the settlers in the Oregon Territory to take over the British held land, but they lose the war. The CSA gets the Mexican Arizona Territory (since it was not taken over by the US, as they would have had no way to link it with the rest of the country, because of the British taking over half of the Louisiana Purchase.

I know its confusing, and my spelling is horible, and I will try to explain it better if you need it. I do have some world maps in FTBW that can illistrate it somewhat better. The lkink to my talk page can be found by going to my user name and clicking on talkk page. Hope to here from you soon! Tbguy1992 19:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your acknowledgment of my TL! That makes me feel good.


 * I have had problems when I first started the TL with trying to find a good enough name, but the majority seemed to suck ("French Industrial Revolution"; "L'empire de Napoleanic se lèvera!"‎; then the correct version of the previous "L'empire napoléonien se lèvera!", meaning the "Napoleonic Empire will Rise!, or something like that). I thought that FTBW was the best idea (meaning mediocre) that I had, as Trafalgar, being a French Victory, would have meant ir would have been the equivalent as a British "Waterloo,"using the meaning it would have meant in OTL, as the Battle of Waterloo would never have happened. If I was to change it, I would have to reformat several templates, seven or eight categories and a few dozen articles would have to be moved, and the system won't allow more than a few per day, so it could take weeks to accomplish it. If I could have thought of a better name that didn't already conflict with other TL's, like Napoleon's World, I would have chosen it instead. I think, unless I get a really good idea, and help to change every article in a few days, then I might do it, but ideas may come, but I won't ever be able to change all the articles myself.


 * Thank you for all the advice, and trying to find holes in my story, which I hoped I explained somewhat to you, and plugged the few leaks you did find! Tbguy1992 03:23, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, just what I meant when I complained about how discussions go. I have to remember what I wrote to you last night.  Lucky for me, I have had my coffee this morning.  I appreciate the effort you went through in trying to come up with a title for your time line.  "FTBW" is just fine.  For an "alternate historian" I am not that good at anything but American and ancient history.  I can deal with a world changed drastically in the distant past or my own country changed drastically within its own relatively short history.  Otherwise, I have to do too much research!  :-/
 * Any way, I imagine you regulars on here just click on the user link in the signature and go to the users talk page to answer a post. You may even have both tabs open at the same time, making point by point reference easier.  But my browser doesn't work that way.  Sometimes I cut and paste in two text editors side by side in order to compose answers off line.  But whatever works for you.  Just a pet peeve.  :-)
 * SouthWriter 14:52, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * SouthWriter 14:52, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Outer Lands
I'm picking my fights carefully...if you or someone else wants to contest how he is handling Outer Lands I won't contest it. You also may want to look into his adoption of articles - including two key articles to this timeline (Celtic Alliance, Superior) and question whether he plans to do anything with them or if it's the virtual equivalent of taking another man's work and putting it in your trophy case as if it were your own award. I realize that may be provocative, but that's what I'm seeing right now. BrianD 02:04, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Alex can be a pain. He is trying to work around roadblocks that have been set up to hinder his advance in this "game." As I wrote last night, he hasn't changed Outer Lands, and I doubt if he has done anything with the others which he is "caretaker" of. But he is using his "authority" as a constable to meddle and make things work in his favor where he can. He is listed on the list of administrative duties on things which a constable has no business doing. Lucky for us all, I suppose, that he cannot unilaterally delete articles like brass and lieutenants can.


 * I will take your complaint under advisement. Alex should have learned with the whole "trial" he went through. SouthWriter 15:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but how am I using "authority" to make things work, especially after the trial? Not once have I said ever "I am a constable, make this work for me!" I don't know why you say that to people. Up until a few days ago I did not know I was even caretaker of Outer Lands! As for the Celtic Alliance, I was given permission to caretake it, make sure people don't come in and try to steal territory, vandalize, and things like that. I also handle its affairs, such as sporting events, wars, and border issues like with Wales.
 * Superior is the same thing, I handle but haven't put much work into it. If somebody claims it as theirs, its my job to be like "Whoa, buddy. No, no, no". I used to separate my adopted works from my actual ones but merged them after I saw how much space I could save.
 * I do not necessarily want Outer Lands to be honest. What I do not like more is people talking about me behind my back, especially bad things, which feels kind of sneaky and betraying. This is similar to the things that you once said about me, and Yank.
 * And it clearly states on the Administrative Duties that a Constable is exempt from doing things it is not supposed to. So I signed up for the ones I could.
 * You can have Outer Lands back, I really dont care anymore. Arstarpool 02:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * From the TSPTF page:
 * The Time Stream Protection Task Force are the management of this wiki, and those that keep the peace. These are broken up into three levels, the Brass (Bureaucrats), Lieutenants (Admins) and Constables (Rollback) 
 * Constables are editors who have been granted rollback power to allow for a faster, automated reversion of vandalism. They are the foot soldiers in the ongoing war against vandals and trolls. 
 * As you can see, constables are not administrators. They are "public servants" who have volunteered to do the dirty work of dealing with trouble makers. That is also included in the work of an adminstrator, but has been granted to young editors to give them experience in dealing with problems. One day, I am sure, you and Yank will be able to take on more responsibilties. The responsibilities, as a matter of fact, that distinctly are for administrators:
 * "If you are an administrator, please sign up below for at least three areas you will help keep an eye on. If all of us work together it will not take much effort. (Note: Constables are exempt from signing up for responsibilities they do not have the powers for)"
 * You have signed up for "Orphaned Pages," "New Pages," and "No Cross, No Crown" - three duties listed for administrators, Yank has not so signed up, for he is exempt, as are you. In order to deal with these subjects, we have to deal with forgotten articles, frivoulous material, and inappropriate arguments that bleed over into personal attacks. The idea of your being "exempt" means that you don't have to sign up for any additional duties -- you check on vandalism and trolls. You probably won't find too much of that on forgotten and new pages. You might find people that throw themselves into the middle of personal arguments, but that can hardly be vandalism, can it?
 * And if Brian and I wanted to talk about you "behind your back" we would simply go on facebook where we can message one another. It is a sad feature of these talk pages that it is open to all who care to look. It makes discussing problems a bit difficult. I have indeed complained, along with most of the other administrators, about your behavior and remarks. But I have also defended you at times. I have taken your side, I have worked with you on articles. I have nothing personal against you, Alex. I am just trying to make this wiki work better. And that means making 1983DD work as a community effort.
 * If you are not going to keep Outer Lands, then you will have to conform to canon (Outer Lands controls Cape Cod) in order to have Plymouth returned to canon. As I have suggested, the articles can be merged, but it must be done from the Outer Lands side. If Brian or Fx can rewrite it to merge painlessly with Plymouth, then it will go a lot smoother. You might not have to make many changes at all after that.
 * SouthWriter 04:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue to bring up problems are officially behind me. I have a "clean slate" as Mitro calls it, but thanks to you, I smudged a whole lot of mud on my slate today, something I'm not proud of. I don't see why Fx would rewrite it, you must be confused with Outer Banks. While I doubt the Outer Lands would control Cape Cod by official borders, I will give up more and more of it back to OL.
 * Just please, for once, be honest and straight with me. You were talking bad about me and it is in fine print. I can see the words" Alex can be a pain" above and the words "can be" do not change what it says. And it is "lucky for us all I can't delete articles?" You truly have power-to-the-head sickness, and now nothing you say can change that. Whether you notice it or not, like I did not notice mine, it is there and some can see it and some can't. Just
 * If you are not going to keep Outer Lands, then you will have to conform to canon (Outer Lands controls Cape Cod) in order to have Plymouth returned to canon. As I have suggested, the articles can be merged, but it must be done from the Outer Lands side. If Brian or Fx can rewrite it to merge painlessly with Plymouth, then it will go a lot smoother. You might not have to make many changes at all after that.
 * SouthWriter 04:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue to bring up problems are officially behind me. I have a "clean slate" as Mitro calls it, but thanks to you, I smudged a whole lot of mud on my slate today, something I'm not proud of. I don't see why Fx would rewrite it, you must be confused with Outer Banks. While I doubt the Outer Lands would control Cape Cod by official borders, I will give up more and more of it back to OL.
 * Just please, for once, be honest and straight with me. You were talking bad about me and it is in fine print. I can see the words" Alex can be a pain" above and the words "can be" do not change what it says. And it is "lucky for us all I can't delete articles?" You truly have power-to-the-head sickness, and now nothing you say can change that. Whether you notice it or not, like I did not notice mine, it is there and some can see it and some can't. Just
 * You continue to bring up problems are officially behind me. I have a "clean slate" as Mitro calls it, but thanks to you, I smudged a whole lot of mud on my slate today, something I'm not proud of. I don't see why Fx would rewrite it, you must be confused with Outer Banks. While I doubt the Outer Lands would control Cape Cod by official borders, I will give up more and more of it back to OL.
 * Just please, for once, be honest and straight with me. You were talking bad about me and it is in fine print. I can see the words" Alex can be a pain" above and the words "can be" do not change what it says. And it is "lucky for us all I can't delete articles?" You truly have power-to-the-head sickness, and now nothing you say can change that. Whether you notice it or not, like I did not notice mine, it is there and some can see it and some can't. Just
 * Just please, for once, be honest and straight with me. You were talking bad about me and it is in fine print. I can see the words" Alex can be a pain" above and the words "can be" do not change what it says. And it is "lucky for us all I can't delete articles?" You truly have power-to-the-head sickness, and now nothing you say can change that. Whether you notice it or not, like I did not notice mine, it is there and some can see it and some can't. Just


 * After the "Uprising" or the "Trials", I decided I would not work with you or Zack ever again. Now I have bent the rules with Zack, but for you and after a history of similar events of "smack-talking"(I can send you a reference page if you would like, no lie) I will keep true to my promise with you. I have given up on mainstream 1983: Doomsday projects and will stick to, if I continue to contribute at all, to the minor villages and things like that. I will finish my Alabama article, and I will finish my North Carolina article, or any others I've created, and then I will be sure to fall back into the shadows of minor articles.
 * I am thinking about resigning as a matter of fact. You claim so often I "use my power" to get me ahead when in fact I have no power other than an extra button next to the "undo" one. Arstarpool 04:26, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking about resigning as a matter of fact. You claim so often I "use my power" to get me ahead when in fact I have no power other than an extra button next to the "undo" one. Arstarpool 04:26, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * In Arstarpool's defense South, "administrators" does mean constables. When I said the constables were exempt, I meant from Deleting articles or banning vandals, something only Lt's and Brass have the power to do. Mitro 14:23, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, Mitro, you made the rules. However, as quoted above, there beside the Lieutenant is in parenthesis (Admins). You further state that "Brass" and "Lieutenants" are essentially the same, but you limit Constables to "rollback" of "vandals and trolls." I am pretty sure I saw in discussion pages that the roll of constable was created to fulfill those small tasks to relieve the upper tiers of the TSPTF of the perceived overload. In the real world "constables" are under authority of administrators (chief of police, sheriff, etc.) I assumed the same held here. If a constable is on the same level with a Captain or a Lieutenant in a police force, then there can be chaos on the street. It has happened with both Yank and Arstar - all be it in different ways.
 * As administrators of 1983DD, we have a responsibility to uphold the "canon." What is expected of us in the rest of the wiki? When should we step in? I think we should work towards a quality wiki that does the genre of Alternate history proud. But with 11,000 articles, I cannot monitor everything. I am not a professional historian, so I have to just judge most stuff on its readability and cohesion.
 * And I know that Arstarpool is reading this, so let me say this is nothing personal and not meant in a mean way. I am just presenting what I think, as I have cited the standards and guidelines as I understand them. SouthWriter 15:53, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem that my additions to the TSPTF page have caused some confusion. It may be necessary to get all the members of the group together to discuss and define each role to avoid this confusion.
 * But as I said before, we don't have greater powers than regular editors when it comes to the content of any individual TL. When participating as contributors to any TL we are equal to every member. Every member of 1983DD has the duty to uphold canon, as administrators we do not have power to decide what goes in that canon over non-administrators, the community of the TL decides that. Furthermore, being administrators of the wiki does not give us sole power to add or remove banners. Anyone can graduate or unreview an article as long as the are properly followed. Our job is completely house-keeping, the community of the wiki itself works together to create a quality wiki. The only times we can judge content is when it violates a rule of the wiki, for example if it is future history or a derivative work.
 * Also I realize you can't monitor all 11,000 articles and I don't think anyone expects you too. That is why we have more than one administrator and have asked people to volunteer only for specific responsibilities in regard to maintaining the wiki. Just do your best and no one can fault you for it. Mitro 16:55, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * South issue with Arstar's removal of the review tag was that he did not follow the editorial guidelines & just arbitrarily removed the tag. GOPZACK 17:56, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I believe I told Arstar on the main page he should have not have done that. I was just saying that as administrators of this wiki, we are not the only ones who can remove those banners.  Mitro 17:58, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mitro, for that clarification. I am essentially in agreement with you on the technical role of the administrator.  I have explained myself below to Vegas in some detail.  I apologize for any confusion my fervor has brought to the wiki.  There need not be any fear of me getting out of control.  I will burn out soon enough at my rather slow rate as it is.
 * I was wondering, though, how orphans and dead-end articles are determined. It seems to be by some algorithm (I fixed one of the orphan articles and it disappeared from the list instantly).  And I signed up to monitor NCNC, will that be referred to me by users, or what? SouthWriter 18:06, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikia does it automatically. Orphans are any articles that no other article links to, while dead ends are articles that don't have any links on them.  You can see why you don't need to be an administrator to fix those type of articles.
 * As for NCNC, well there are only two instances since its inception that it was ever used. Someone might come to you with a complaint under it or you might have to intervene if you see a discussion spiralling out of control.  Mitro 23:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

File Uploading
Wikia sent a message out saying they are temporarily suspending file uploading. It is probably a maintenance thing and will be back on sometime later. Mitro 16:58, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I figured as much, but I didn't get the memo. I was doing some updates. It can wait. SouthWriter 17:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

CSA (Muscle Shoals) map
Thank you for taking the time to do what I hadn't yet gotten around to doing myself. The map looks good and the boundaries work (although I never fully outlined what each 'state' would look like). I really appreciate your work and your time on it. --BrianD 18:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, we had several versions on the talk page. Mine was just the final version incorporating a lot of what you and others had done. I noticed upon closer examination that some of the lines were based on old congressional district lines rather than on county lines. That probably needs to be changed to county lines since such entities would still exist in most cases. Of course Congressional districts help us figure out who might be leading those states in the present day. SouthWriter 18:48, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

TSPTF
It seems we have differing opinions on the duties of a Lt in the TSPTF. To me it looks as if you believe our duty is to bring articles up to a good standard and that we have some sort of extra rights above normal users. You also make reference to Constables being "Public Servants" we to are public servants, we volunteer to help bring the wiki under control by deleting articles and images unwanted as well as enforcing the wiki's rules. We do not and should not have any extra rights only responsibilities. Perhaps I have the wrong idea about you, and if so tell me, but if I'm not could you tell me why you have these beliefs. Vegas adict 08:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking, Vegas. Perhaps I am zealous as to the standards. The templates for Proposal, Review, and Deletion all state that these are in place to assure those very standards.


 * ddprop:

It has not been ratified and is therefore not yet a part of the 1983: Doomsday Timeline.


 * Ddreview:

Even though it is part of the 1983: Doomsday Timeline, there is debate about whether this article conflicts with older canon or is to improbable to remain as is.


 * delete:

[I}f the author of this article shows no interest in improving his AltHist to the required quality demands this article will be deleted.


 * Technically, any user can put these templates up, and any other "housekeeping" templates, but it is the administrators who are responsible to see that they are used correctly and fairly. Though our powers of editing are not any different than other users, and we need to be there doing these things regularly. If we are slack at our editing, the wiki might become cluttered with frivolous nonsense that is a discredit to our genre of literature. It is unappreciated enough in the world of literature. Science fiction, as thrilling as it is, falls away from the realm of reality far too often. Alternate history, to be good, has to deal with a plethora of detail to remain believable. Sometimes, for a good story, the history will take bizarre turns which are probably improbable but not impossible. I, for one, don't like that approach, but bend to the will of the community when it is a community effort. In individual efforts, I can do nothing but offer suggestions.
 * I used the term "public servant" in reference to the real world duties of a constable. He is to be on patrol to keep wrong doers from disturbing the peace. I used it in contrast to an administrator - one who IS responsible for the rules. If rules are to be changed, it will be administrators that change them. If changes are made, the administrators need to inform others so as to maintain order.


 * We do have extra rights -- we can block, and ban users, as well as delete articles at will. These are grave responsibilities - it is no light thing to have control over someone else's freedom of speech. But rules are there, and we are here to see that they are kept. I have not done anything untoward -- I just have taken hold of my duties with fervor. There are almost 11,000 articles, and I have not even been through half of the articles at 1983DD to check for irregularities. I have not deleted anything, nor have banned or blocked any user. I have followed the new "Review" procedure twice, and caught a few inappropriate changes in a few articles which I corrected.


 * I do not plan to exercise these "rights" as an administrator without due process. In fact, I do not look forward to any time that may require the use of such rights. I intend to fulfill my responsibilities, in those areas I volunteered to offer help in - orphaned pages, dead end pages (that one with you) and NCNC. As I understand it, I will need to follow up on pages that are out-of-place, helping them find a place or deleting them (after due warning). I am also volunteering to keep discussions from deteriorating into real life arguments over controversial beliefs - be they political or philosophical. I am not sure where that will go, but I am sure that someone on the receiving end of such a discussion will come knocking at a time I least expect it.
 * I hope this has helped you know where I am coming from. It is how I "read the rules." If you understand your responsibilities differently, that is okay with me. I am not on a crusade to change the alternate universes of the wiki to meet my ideas of how they "ought" to be. It is harder enough just keeping them consistent with themselves. --SouthWriter 15:32, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your views to meVegas adict 17:04, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

First Coast
I graduated First Coast & I'm going to make a new map so it smaller sometime soon. --GOPZACK 02:38, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think you should consult with -Sunkist- before you shrink it a bit. Anyways, I need to talk to you Zack regarding the unification of the three Florida's. What are we going to do with the seperate nation articles? Should we turn them into articles on the states of Republic of Florida, or have them be articles telling about the former nations? [Arstapool, September 3, 2010]


 * Unless we eliminate some of the bombs (besides Ft. Myers), First Coast will be smaller, and most likely weaker, than Sunkist has it now. It is alot closer to Gainesville than is South Florida, and would likely have been discovered fairly early by its neighbor to the west.  Reunification, like Arstarpool indicates, could have been a gradual thing, coming together to a time in the near future.  Without outside help (from Gainesville or the Bahamas, for example) First Coast would not have lasted until the present.  I look forward to a unified Florida.  My answer to the dilemma of what to do with the old articles -- change the introdution of each to read  " -- is a former independent nation now a region of the Republic of Florida."  Their histories would then be their own up to the last paragraph.  Separate sections on the Republic of Florida article might give a paragraph for the separate histories with a statement - "See artilce: --"  SouthWriter 00:07, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

USA Central World
Hi South sorry that I read your comment until now, well Mexico gain that territory because of Germany, because it fight with them in North America, while the territories lost taken by Japan are taken thanks to the Treaty of Fresno which turned Alaska, and Hawaii sovereign states and give them all their territories, I hope I answer your questions, for you to contribute. VENEZUELA 04:06, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I can see how a German empress being on the throne might make Mexico fight for the Axis, it is no small thing to lose Texas and the Southwest to the nation. I don't see how the USA, the richest nation on the earth, could agree to this - even with the threat of atomic destruction. If anything, Puerto Rico would go to Mexico and the Virgin Islands to Germany. The Pacific territories - Alaska and Hawaii - had been American for over fifty years, and I don't see them being given independence by Japan. In short, Vene, I can't go along with the viability of this outcome for the USA. Good luck, however, in your venture into Alternate History. --SouthWriter 05:13, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alaska and Hawaii were created like Manchukuo and I think I going to change the thing of Mexico. VENEZUELA 05:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll check out the changes. Perhaps I can do something with a 48-state USA and a placid Mexico. The communist takeover of Mexico will offer an interesting scenario either way the story goes. SouthWriter 15:04, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

What Communist takeover? you're confused with Central Victory. VENEZUELA 18:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed I was, Vene. Even more reason not to go along with the loss of teh SW to Mexico. If the US is an emerging superpower, then it would not allow sovereign states on the mainland to go to Mexico. Whatever Germany had promised Mexico in either World War, it could not hand over land that did not belong to it to a nation that didn't really want it in the first place. The Caribbean islands would be worthless to Japan and almost impossible to administer. Japan didn't fight for them, so why should they be given to them? I still think those islands (PR and USVI) should become the 49th state (because of size) after the loss of Alaska, Hawaii and the rest of the Pacific islands. SouthWriter 19:53, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Southwriter this is what I'm gonna do:
 * 1) Puerto Rico and US virgin Islands as State of Puerto Rico
 * 2) USA claiming their lost lands to Mexico since president Reagan.
 * 3) And just for you to know, Mexico joined the Central Powers, invading USA, although Mexico was originally loosing, the Germans after achieved victory in Europe, send their army to the deserts of Mexico and USA, were they both along with the other Central Powers captured Los Angeles, where USA decide to surrender and return this 3 states to Mexico. VENEZUELA 20:12, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just read the Wikipedia article on Mexico. During the years of the First World War, Mexico was in the middle of a civil war. In order to bring about a Central victory, though, I'm thinking that perhaps your point of divergence needs to be in fact before the civil war. Diaz would have to stay on in 1911, so during his second administration (perhaps during the Spanish American War) he makes some political moves that start a border war with the US. That war would keep the US out of WW1, assuring a Central win. And then, as you say, the Central Powers could lend aid to Mexico and thus declare war on the US. That war, an extension of WW1 would result in occupied zones. Those zones would keep the war in NA up through WW2. German and Austrian troops would probably be there like we in OTL are in Korea sixty years after that civil war.


 * The Diaz regime, and his successors, would have to be dictators that actively resettled the southwest (Arizona was still a territory when Diaz left office in OTL). The Americans living there might remain, but they would probably be second class citizens. Texas, I'm sure, would be a very hard place to occupy, and I see it being a political pawn between the wars, possibly coming back under US control even before 1940. The home front in the World War 2 would be enough to bring about an armistice, but not a surrender by the US. Foreign troops would withdraw from Mexico, and over the course of twenty years or so, the original 19th century boundary would be restored, leaving a large Mexican population still in place. In the meantime, a democratic republic would be established in Mexico and a economic relationship (North American Trade Agreement) would form a powerful bloc to replace the economies that in OTL arose as a result of the US assisting to rebuild Japan and Europe.


 * Since you have only laid down a rough outline so far, I hope this scenario helps fill in the gaps without violating the essence of your vision of an alternate universe turning on the defeat of the allies in WW1. --SouthWriter 23:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You! South, would you like to write an article. VENEZUELA 23:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Vene. You work on making Diaz powerful enough to maintain the border war, and I'll start on a history of America since a "loss" (since it technically loses three states for a while) in the "Second Mexican-American War." I'll have the US stay out of WW1, as such. Is it okay if I go ahead and remove the USA from the list in WW1? Or do you want the Mexican war to be an official part of that war? SouthWriter 00:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think I should be an official part of the war. what do you think? also i answer you the jordan-jews thing. VENEZUELA 02:12, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

South Africa
Also South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, and Lesotho were the only remaining colonies in south africa, so what do you think about a Confederation of South Africa covering all that zones, and zambia, plus Namibia showing interest in joining, they might be a confederation with the following members: VENEZUELA 05:18, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Kingdom of Swaziland
 * 2) Kingdom of Lesotho
 * 3) State of Good Hope (South Africa)
 * 4) State of Botswana
 * 5) State of Zambia


 * As for South Africa, let us consider all of Africa. At the outbreak of WW1 it was largely colonized by France and the UK, with a pronounced German influence south of the Sahara. With the Central powers in control of Europe, it would not allow for these colonies to continue under Ally influence. If it had to, I suppose, the Central powers might grant some autonomy to some countries in north Africa (with the understanding that they cut ties to the Allies). In South Africa, though, I think the Central Powers, namely the German Empire, would maintain power there as long as they could. In modern times, I suppose, there could be autonomy and even independence as the empires of Europe and Asia collapse. I have recolored the map to reflect the partition of the continent among Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, but that is not loading right now. I will send that map later. But I figure west and south Africa would be under German control, North Africa between Monaco and Egypt would be under Austrian control and west Africa would be under Ottoman control.

SouthWriter 19:21, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well the German colonies will be all the ones of the Mittelafrika plan including the ones of Portugal mentioned in the plan, and if you read the treaty of Topkapi, you can see how the partition of the French Colonial African Empire is made, while later in WW2 a giant Italian colonial Empire is made, the same of Greater Italy. And here the Centrals did made the same the allies did to Italy, the only new AFRICAN Ottoman colony was Egypt which after the Ottoman collapse was given to Italy, but all the British Middle East possessions were given to the Ottomans. VENEZUELA 19:32, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
Also here is what I planned for Mexico:

When Francisco I. Madero is taken to jail by Diaz, he is executed, so he never flew to Texas where he creates the revolutionary movement, Diaz win the 1911 and dies being president in 1915, where his sucessor Victoriano Huerta takes his place, the Woodrow Administration disliking this like in OTL launch the Tampico Affair,in 1914, so Mexico declares war to the USA, then in 1917 the Zimmerman telegram arrive uniting the Huerta governmet to the Central Powers, making USA to stay out of Europe, causing Central Victory in Europe. Then we add all the part of the occupation. VENEZUELA 05:18, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * About Mexico. Since Madero escaped from his guards on horseback, it would be better to just write in that he was killed in that escape. Since he had written that "force will be met with force," we can assume that his guards would have shot him as he tried to escape (since he was a "known threat" to the president). Diaz would still have been president in 1914, so the war would have been declared by him rather than by Huerta. This war, though a minor skirmish to begin with, would have turned Wilson's attention away from Europe and the Zimmerman telegram would have just added fuel to a fire already burning. The Huerta regime, already at war with the USA, would welcome the offered help from the Central powers once they had achieved victory in Europe (assuming a VE day for the Central Powers coming earlier?). As the Central Powers begin to advance into the claimed territory, the US would sue for peace, probably drawing its citizens out of the occupied territories (on a voluntary basis) with the understanding that violence done to those remaining would be a violation of the treaty. Texas, as it did in the 1800's, would resist the occupation, leading Mexico to withdraw its troops and re-negotiate the armistice. This could be considered part of WW1, I suppose, but for the US it would be called the "Second Mexican-American War."

And About Mexico, I like that idea, I think it will be the decisive. VENEZUELA 19:28, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Answers
And what do you think about Lebanon until Latakia which has a high Christian population and having a Alawite landlocked state.VENEZUELA 20:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. You have done your homework. I had not read what you had written concerning the ethnic uprisings causing a breakup of the Ottoman Empire, so I assumed eat Africa would go with Egypt as being a Muslim stronghold. My proposal giving coastal western Africa to Germany was mostly based on the assumption that Germany called the plays and would want control of the ports and such on the Atlantic. If Austria was stronger, then I guess I could go with that - and the transfer of that to Italy after WW2, I suppose (not sure of what becomes of A-H Empire).


 * I had not thought of Germany giving a colony to Mexico, and I see from the treaty that most of west Africa is dished out to the puppet states of east Europe, so basically they are still under the control of Germany. To the left is the Africa I had pictured before you clarified the fall of the Ottoman Empire during WW2.


 * I am not so sure we would want to extend "Christian" Lebanon all the way to Latakia, unnecessarily land-locking a Muslim state. That would make that state dependent upon the enlarged Lebanon for much of its commerce. This would just cause unnecessary friction. For some reason, except in for radical Muslim states, the Arabian nations tolerate Christians a lot better than they do Jews. I suspect it is the traditional rivalry that goes back far earlier than the rise of Islam. Any way, to the right are the two ethnic states in Syria.

Well I think Lakatia and Hatay should be their own state, maybe know as the Sanjak of Alexandretta.

And what do you think about Greater South Africa? VENEZUELA 22:28, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Vene, I don't really think creating little city-states in the Mideast would be the way the world would go with Hitler ruling Europe in a cold war with the Japanese Empire. Consolidation, not segregation, would be the rule of the day.


 * South Africa, with its riches in natural resources, would become a become a white-ruled enclave much worse than what British South Africa had become. His Apartheid (pronounce 'apart-hate,' with the emphasis in Hitler's case especially on the "hate") would make OTL look mild. I can see work camps akin to "slave labor" getting by the UN censors quite easily. There would be no autonomous black states under Nazi rule, that is for sure. "Südafrika" would be one nation, not many, and it would not be pretty. --SouthWriter 22:50, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

1. I think Lakatia will stay as a country, and please wait until I finish the Middle East map in which you can see the countries. 2. About South Africa, it never fell to the Germans, and Hitler was not as crazy as in real life, and Southafrica was a neutral county in TTL Cold War, but have a German friendly regime. VENEZUELA 23:04, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to have to read over your pages again. Apparently winning WW1 caused a kinder, gentler Germany that is just defending itself against an aggressive Soviet Union at a time when a sane Adolf Hitler had risen to power. But your own article outlines the transfer of control of South Africa to Germany, meaning that it did not have to "fall" to them in war. What had been a British colony became a German colony. So, the rise of independent states in Africa would be as in OTL, being overseen by the benevolent dictator in Berlin? I'm sorry if I don't understand, Vene, but this is beginning to look a less viable to me.
 * The economic problems that caused the fall of the Weimar Republic were crucial in the rise of Corporal Hitler. With France being blamed for the war, those economic problems would have been there instead. The Republic would not have fallen, and it might even have had American support when Russia attacked it (not probable, but possible). When an ally from WW1 (Japan) attacks Pearl Harbor, it becomes a different story (Japan having joined the Axis). But that's off subject. How does the Republic fall, and how does Hitler take over? SouthWriter 23:52, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not like that, South Africa was never German where did you read that? in 1989, the only African Remaining colonies were German: Namibia and Zimbawe and all the Italians, German loss of WWI affected much of Hitler, but here his government is not like in OTL but instead Apartheid like government, and Hitler was never in OTL and TTL a benevolant dictator. VENEZUELA 00:12, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Arstarpool
I think we should keep the discussion on the main page up as a reminder of what could happen again. --GOPZACK 16:59, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

The present situation with Plymouth is escalating towards the same situation. Since Mitro said the reason for archiving was to prevent further voting, I suppose that the discussion should remain up. If not, we need to at least leave a note up on the page that the discussion has been archived. I don't think Arstar is going to forget it either way. No one else is acting the way he is, so the reminder need not be so open. Check with Mitro on this one. SouthWriter 17:24, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Outer Banks (1983: Doomsday)
checked the IP out and its an anonymous I used to edit Bermuda with its just been sitting hear doing nothing so if you want to have a go editing it that's OK--Owen1983 20:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Outer Lands political chart
Please forgive me. I had no knowledge on the Plymouth colony, so I didn't mean to get it mixed into the OL. I also had no idea on the area of the Block Island. I responded to your comment on Arstar's talk page. Do you think I am pestering with this article? --NuclearVacuum 16:14, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the OL article is canon, and includes all five counties/boroughs with no overlap into what Arstar is wanting to do with Plymouth. He has the unfortunate timing to go after the very attractive idea of a restoration of America's second colony (or Pilgrim fame) after Outer Lands had been created almost on a whim by Brian. The wikipedia articles on Plymouth and on the Outer Lands both offer enticing maps. I supported Brian when he put up the Outer Lands because I thought, as did he, that New England was mostly wasteland. However, only Boston is confirmed a target in Massachusetts, so Plymouth colony was worth a shot. I supported Arstar in the creation of Plymouth and have even lobbied for a combining of the two articles.


 * Regarding the chart, all the areas of the Outer Lands except Block Island have the total area - land and water. For Barnstable county that includes most of the bay between the peninsular and the mainland (almost 70% of the total). With Block Island I used a 10 mile radius (reaching almost to the mainland) but probably a three-mile limit should be used. That would be 28,274 sq, miles if measured from the center of the island. Of course, it would probably be 3 miles out from the shoreline, but that is incredibly hard to figure! It's probably not going to be challenged any time soon any way! I'd probably go with "approx. 30 sq mi." for the total until somebody with a calculus degree or at least a good graphing program comes along. :-)


 * Or, we could just go with the land areas of each county, leaving the shorelines to international treaties. :-(


 * SouthWriter 20:36, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I just opened the article and see that you changed Block Island to the total I had.  That's cool. We can leave it there for now.  I'll see if I can find out the legal coastlines of the other counties involved.
 * PS. I just opened the article and see that you changed Block Island to the total I had.  That's cool. We can leave it there for now.  I'll see if I can find out the legal coastlines of the other counties involved.

Republic of Yale
I think you need to be aware of Jnjaycpa's Republic of Yale proposal. This potentially could greatly affect Outer Lands, Plymouth and even Vermont if he can satisfactorily answer questions about the proposal's viability and it becomes canon. Arstar and Mitro also know about it and I'd like you to look at it as well. BrianD 19:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Owen
If you are receiving this message you are a member of the TSPTF. Owen, which is already causing ruckus, wants to be part of the TSPTF again ! He claimed that he did not vote for Smoggy so he could gain respect but then wrote on Louis' page what I am about to write below:"since I successfully nominated Smoggy, can I join the TSPTF now?" - Owen1983He doesn't get it, this guy. I suggest you respond to him. He does not get how we function, he does not understand how to write alternate history, hell, he barely knows how to write English, and he is a grade-A spammer. Some people are already complaining again and hes only been back for about a week or so. Please respond, Arstarpool

Americas in Central World
Hi I did not wanted to harm anyone, I just added this because USA wanted to show to the Central World, that South America was their zone of influence, and I'm very happy with this USA sponsored dictators because in this TTL like in OTL made South America a better place, sorry if I harm you I think this was going to harm someone, instead I really like the idea of USA in America, sorry. VENEZUELA 04:20, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Vene. I accept your apologies.  I forgot that you do not have the exact same way of looking at the world as I do.  To me, dictators are hardly ever a good thing, even when they are benevolent.  When you softened Hitler, allowing him to die of old age, and have a man almost as old as himself succeed him, I should have considered where you were coming from.  I suppose a US-sponsored dictator is better than a coup d'etat any old day.  The good thing about a dictator is that he does bring stability - as long as he is strong and has the backing of those even stronger than he is.


 * I will work on a draft of a proposed twentieth century time line based on a period of occupied territories in the American southwest. I will not know how Mexico's Central connections will affect the rest of the Western hemisphere until I have the bigger picture, but I suspect that applying the Monroe Doctrine is going to assure a very strong western hemisphere to counter the empires elsewhere. SouthWriter 04:34, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
I made that comment because Rush Linbaugh is a total asshole. He's the kind of person that he'd be an asshole no matter what his political beliefs. The way he mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's just made my bood boil. If you didn't know before, I have an Uncle who has Parkinson's so this is kind of personal.

Yankovic270 12:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * At time's rush has been known to be insensitive and so has Ann Coulter, who you also trashed in the same comment. I understand how you could be hurt by a statement that was ill-advised at best.  However, it is just as insensitive to speak ill of those with whom you disagree with politically.  You came across in the statement as wishing him and Couter dead because they dare to excercise freedom of speech and disagree with you.  That is putting personal politics into the discussion - NCNC.  SouthWriter 21:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

NCNC
Gotcha on that point. Now that the message is across, I might as well delete the notification from my talk page - not to airbrush over the warning, of course, but to totally clear away the matter. There's no point in deleting it in one place and pasting it up on another, is there?

And no offence intended by using Jesus' name in vain. It must have slipped my mind and could probably have used a less contentious intensifier. Fegaxeyl 20:03, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. Personal talk pages are just as public as any other talk pages in this forum.  As long as its in the history, the point is made (for reference sake, so anyone else I call on this matter will see that it's nothing personal). SouthWriter 20:12, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of shropshire
Thank you for pointing this. out I am not used to Punctuation so I checked it out and I corrected a spelling mistake and added a full stop ant the ends of sentences. --Owen1983 13:37, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Owen, I commend you for your zeal to participate, but I have a problem with such blatent lying. It is very easy to check the history on these articles to see who made changes. The changes to that paragraph were made by an administrator of the wiki going by the name of Oerwinde. It is clear from your statement above that you have very little knowledge of punctuation, so to claim you corrected the errors was suspect even before I checked the history.

This wiki is attempting to be a quality service as an opening for writers to share their ideas about alternate history with the world. The articles, therefore, must be readable in order to be useful. If you are creating articles and making edits just to "get points" in what you consider a game, I would suggest you post free standing alternate histories based fully on your own imagination. That way, you will have a place to share your ideas without disrupting the flow of story lines laid down by others over the course of over two years (as with 1983: Doomsday). SouthWriter 14:25, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

North Penn.
I think you should take a look at the North Penn article and talk page. Erie is out completely, as are the steel mills, but I looked it up and it looks like the steel mills are indeed in the center of the city, which would mean the airport blast would wipe them out regardless.

This article, I don't know what I did different, but I put a lot of work into it. I want it to be flawless when I graduate it, because I don't want it to suffer the fate of some of my other articles, where they get put up for review and stuff like that. If there aren't any other objections, please graduate it when possible.

Arstarpool 20:15, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your hard work, Alex. This article looks good, though you haven't removed the steel mills in Erie. However, I found facilities in Vandergrift, Pennsylvania (in southern part of your survivor state), that might be used to build business for the state. All other possibilities were either bombed or are in other parts of the state. I went ahead and changed the reference to Erie in that paragraph to Vandergrift. I don't see anything else wrong with the article, but I will review it and see if I can graduate it. Don't worry about it being "flawless," though, for everyone has flaws in their research - sometimes even things that would destroy the time line as we know it! But if we work together, the whole picture will be about as good as it can be. SouthWriter 22:02, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well you are right about the being flawless. But I would like this to be as detailed and well-written, as researched and as realistic as possible. Actually Vandergrift is not in North Penn territory, and the lightly shaded colors on the map actually mean potential "expansion" spots, not actual controlled areas. I may develop the county as an independent one in the future but to be honest I am fine without the steel mills. I have found a lot of other profitable things that a steel mill isn't super important; I found some sawmills and a mining material plant/manufacturer, and the second could possibly be converted into a steel mill. Besides, the Virginians apparently have steel mills, they could also buy some blueprints for them some time.

Part of my new reasoning is that I realized the true nature of Doomsday; that it is a DOOM event. Sure there will be civilizations, but these places like Indiana or California or New Haven, or others just wouldn't be plausible. I want a small but somewhat successful nation that has access to the lakes and other survivor nations in my Pennsylvania article, that in my opinion is better than some hulk state like Siberia or Virginia or Australia. It teaches you that for the people like the Pennsylvanians would not care about if America survived or not or if there was an Australian superpower and would be cutting lumber because they needed it, or growing grapes as needed. It teaches you about how certain places can cooperate, and what they could do on their own. A steel mill at the moment would be too hard to maintain, but something like a food processing plant would, or a sawmill could too. Arstarpool 06:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are showing a maturity in dealing with the subject matter far beyond what you had when you began this venture. I figured I was stretching things with the steel mill, but I wanted you to have the manufacturing facilities if you wanted them. It is probably pushing it to lump Virginia with Siberia and Australia, but I can understand your point. I am not sure the attitude of the survivors would be one of complacency as to the fate of America (their ancestors helped found the nation and their parents fought to keep the world free of tyranny), but I am sure they, as almost everyone everywhere, were more more interested in survival than anything else.
 * You are so right about working with others as well, for we have become far too dependent on imported goods for almost anything we use these days. It was practically the same back in 1983 as well. America, and most of the civilized world, was going full speed ahead into a global community. It had started soon after WW 2 as the US helped rebuild the nations it had destroyed - Japan and Germany. But after a quarter of a century, even without help from the nations of the southern hemisphere, the people of America would have begun to communicate, and travel, among the shattered states. Access to the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence Rive, gives Northwest Pennsylvania a big advantage - one not found in a West Virginia based nation or even the Great Plains states. I say the communities there would flourish given that freedom to travel not just between states but between nations (both in the OTL sense).
 * Don't be afraid to dream of the possibilities. This is a dystopia, but not in an absolute sense. That was a myth perpetuated for a while by the creator and original editors of this time line. But as we have looked at the facts - lower yield and smaller numbers of nukes, for example - we have come to a realization that things could be a lot worse. The true doomsday will ultimately have no survivors, but that is a discussion for another place. With that "pleasant" thought, I bid you "good day." SouthWriter 20:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm sounding impatient but have you found any other objections? Arstarpool 21:03, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit impatient, yes. But last time I tried to graduate the article I was over-ruled.  I moved the steel mill, and you haved rejected my solution and not changed the article ("Modern Day") as to what you want it to say.  Change it so as to remove all doubt about Erie and then ask Mitro (he's the one that over-ruled).  SouthWriter 21:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit impatient, yes. But last time I tried to graduate the article I was over-ruled.  I moved the steel mill, and you haved rejected my solution and not changed the article ("Modern Day") as to what you want it to say.  Change it so as to remove all doubt about Erie and then ask Mitro (he's the one that over-ruled).  SouthWriter 21:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit impatient, yes. But last time I tried to graduate the article I was over-ruled.  I moved the steel mill, and you haved rejected my solution and not changed the article ("Modern Day") as to what you want it to say.  Change it so as to remove all doubt about Erie and then ask Mitro (he's the one that over-ruled).  SouthWriter 21:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica
Hey, South, do you think you could now make me the introduction of my timeline? VENEZUELA 18:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, Vene, I'll put together a rewrite to incorporate the new location in the Indian Ocean. I'll let you take it from there. SouthWriter 18:51, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Also, why Malaya-Indonesia would not broke? they broke because of the ice age. and New Guinea would be like in OTL. VENEZUELA 19:03, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I based this on the arrested expansion of the Indusian continent. If it did not pull away from as far, then neither would Indonesia.  Madagascar did not split from Africa, but rather was pushed near to it by the Antarctic plate's expansion.  I assume that it would have ridden with it's parent. SouthWriter 21:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You! I already added the rest. would you please add the part of Madagascar, Indonesia, and Sri-Lanka, and expand my parts like the Indus Valley Civilization part that you add? VENEZUELA 20:18, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time right now to expand on the paragraph you added. But don't rush it, and don't let me "take over" the concept. I see the list of nations for the continent has the Madagasy Republic on the continent, so perhaps you can reproduce the history of OTL Madagascar onto the west coast of Indusia. Anyway, do some research and let me know which direction you want to go. SouthWriter 21:42, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

No Cross, No Crown
There is some debate about this policy and you are at the center of it. Check out the Alternative History talk:No Cross, No Crown for more details. Mitro 20:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Alien Space Bats
My addition of that category to your article was not meant to slander you or your work in any way. I don't think you understand the true definition of the term. It is generally used when either the POD cannot be explained, involves something supernatural or vast changes to the Earth or the laws of physics. The category has nothing to do with attacking someone's work, check out the Wikipedia article on the term. Mitro 20:50, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I am little hurt by your statement. You assumed way to much about my motivations for adding the category, wrongly I might add. This all could have been avoided by simply asking me why I added the category in the first place. I think you are overreacting in regards to an edit I made days ago, but if you feel that moving the TL to another wiki is in your best interest than I support your plan. Mitro 20:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the category, and the ancient POD is not in the least unexplainable. It would be a "vast change" to the earth, for sure, making the challenge being keeping history as we know as close to ours as could be expected. That is why I put the brief synopsis on the page. My feeling for creating a new wiki goes back to the first day I posted the article and is not part of my reaction to the "alien space bat" categorization.
 * I am sorry to hurt you by my statement. I had looked over the recent instances of categorization to "space bat" and saw things that don't fit the category. I am sorry I didn't ask you personally about it, but I did complain in a post about it publicly and got no response from you. Having no response, I then researched the topic and made a judgment call. On the other hand, you should have notified me before adding the category (one which you did not give to an old suggestion for the same thing - see "Jaredia" by Max Sinister). SouthWriter 21:33, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had no idea the Jaredia article existed until you pointed it out to me just now. This is a big wiki, I should not be lectured at for not putting every article/TL in its proper category. Furthermore I should not have to ask every editor permission to add categories to their articles. Now only is it a minor change in the grand scheme of things, but it is also a waste of time to contact every editor I want to add a category to.
 * Since I was not watching the Sideways Earth page, I had no idea you asked the question. I used the add category tool that shows up on the bottom of every page and since it does not add the page to an editor's watchlist when used your article was not added to mine. I'm sorry I missed your question, but I was not ignoring you intentionally. In fact if you had removed the category without contacting me at all I wouldn't have noticed or cared. Obviously you disagree with my judgment call, but your accusations against my motivations or whatever were uncalled for. Heck I added one of my own TLs to that category (Never Ending Great War). Mitro 21:49, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no hard feelings, I just read the definition differently than you. "Alien Space Bat" sounds all the world to me like "nonsense." I looked up the article on Wikipedia as you suggested, and it basically says that it is "poor alternate history" based on implausibility. That is what should be discussed with an editor - especially one who has thousands of edits under his belt and is an administrator. I don't want to produce poor alternate history. So, no, you don't have to contact everyone whose article you tag as "people from Over there" or "places near here" (generic categories - don't try this at home). These categories are self-explanatory. But tagging stuff as "a.s.b." is an insult by its very nature. By the way, supernatural intervention is not the same thing as implausible. The unexplained does not always have to be explained. SouthWriter 05:03, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * No ASB, is not always an insult, not anymore at least. The article itself showed how the term has evolved since it was first used. Today it crops up in the works of published alternate history authors like Stirling and Birmingham, who proudly wave the fact that there is no logical explanation for their PODs. And generally in alternate history unexplained PODs are ASB, at least from my experience. I have seen in the ASB sections of forums like AH.com or others places TLs similar to yours. You might think its wrong but obviously our opinions differ.
 * Listen we can go on like this arguing about the true meaning of the term and likely neither will convince the other that he is wrong. So how about a truce? I won't add the ASB category to your TL again, but at the same time I don't plan to change my use of the category. Maybe if others complain I might reconsider my actions in the future. So can we put this argument aside and move on to more important things? Mitro 15:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's a truce. And I will be sure to give an explanation for points of departure, no matter how "obvious" they might seem to be to me. In writing "Sideways Earth," I recalled an article that showed a wandering magnetic north pole. It was all over the place. However, the article said that the earth's axis was essentially in the same place all along. If I understand the physics, though, the crust "floats" on a molten core and could very well align the continents differently around the axis. That's a bit "off topic," except that it dispels the "unexplained" (and thus, ASB) aspect of the article. I'll change the intro to reflect the speculative science behind the ancient POD. SouthWriter 16:11, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Fisherman cartoon
when I go fishing with my friends we always put them back i think that was what the illustration shows --Owen1983 16:23, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Owen, those don't appear to be sports fisherman. They remark both about "size restrictions" (catch and release) and limits to catch (caught for food).  Fishing strictly for sport is a rather recent development, though recreational fishing (with rods and lines) has been around for millennia in some parts of the world.  Only recently, though, has "catch and release" come into practice.  It is almost certain that fisherman in the northern hemisphere after DD, would not throw back their big fish out of some respect for the gene pool.  The reduced populations, even with more fishermen per capita, would not refuse food so easily gathered from the waters. SouthWriter 16:44, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

fishing is also a good form of recreation --Owen1983 16:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline 1911-1919
Hi South, did you saw the Timeline I finished for Central World: 1911-1919, please give your opinion.VENEZUELA 17:24, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Vene, you did a pretty good job of incorporating the sections of the Wikipedia articles to you own. However, So much material is not necessary to develop an alternate history. It is good to see the "whole picture," but when the information is just a repeat of OTL, it can usually be handled in a synopsis of a paragraph or two. This article would be just as good as a series of bullet points with each important date highlighted by a short sentence. When the timeline diverges from OTL - that is, with a prolonged border war between the US and Mexico and subsequent battles in which the US would have made a difference - those sentences can be linked to new articles that explain how things unfolded to make a different time line.


 * As it is, the section "The United States’ Neutrality and Russia’s Exit" is redundant. The title is about as long as the sentence. Instead a paragraph about the decisive turn of events in 1917 that set the stage for the whole "Central World" needs to be inserted. You also need to flesh out the Armistice as to who was "punished" and how. If I remember correctly, you have the wrath of Germany being laid on France (a reverse of OTL), but the Second World War being started by Russia. I'm not sure how Germany could get the victim of their attack to agree to blame and thus pay the money requested (this led Germany into ruin and into Fascism in OTL). If anything, the punishment should be laid on Russia, even though they had "pulled out" as the revolution began. SouthWriter 18:02, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

If you want you might fix the errors, but France was so punished because Germany in OTL wanted to take France's place as power in this form, and Stalin invaded Europe because he also did this in OTL. VENEZUELA 18:13, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize that you reversed the roles of Germany and France, but the problem is, France was totally decimated and unable to recover before WW 2 in OTL. When you just turn the tables, putting undue pressure on a victim that was too much even for the aggressor in OTL, you do not accomplish much at all. France was no threat, but Russia was and Britain even more so. It would make more sense to "punish" the British, or even the Russians. SouthWriter 20:24, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * They were indeed punished, UK lost most of their colonial empire and was required to create the Commonwealth plus lost almost all African colonies, and the Germans created like 14 puppets in the former Russian empire, also I already finished the 1920's and started he 1930's. VENEZUELA 22:03, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I understand the loss to the British Empire (I think they probably would have lost ALL of their African colonies), and to that of Russia. But this was more of the "spoils of war." To demand that France basically "pay" for the damage done in the war which had destroyed them would not make sense. They had many colonies around the world that could have been taken from them - just like what happened to the Brits. Without them, they would be weak like Britain. Reoccupying France when the time come would have been a breeze, so the Second World War would go the German's way as well.

Or - Germany could just continue to bleed France dry until the 1970's. France, by all indications, should be a German puppet state after WW2 - no questions about it. I don't have a whole lot of time to follow this time line any way. SouthWriter 22:28, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Republicans
You're right. I should have worded my statement differently. Besides, I can think of a reason the Republican Party's name would be mud after Doomsday. When the Depression hit, it tarnished the reputation of the Republican Hoover administration. Doomsday might not have been Reagan's fault, but the Depression wasn't engineered by Hoover either. It still destroyed the chance of a Republican president for years afterwards. The event of Doomsday, being much worse, would have destroyed the chances of a Republican rising to power forever. Besides, ever since the Democrats came back to power, every time I turn on the news there's some other Republican effort to be a nuisance to the new government.

Yankovic270 14:37, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Doomsday might have been enough to solidify West Virginia's Democrats into the ruling party of the new regime. But the label of "Republican" would have been an odd one for an opposition party in a new "Republic" run by the traditional "opposition." That would give rise to the renamed "Federalist" party which would stand for less government and traditonal values. The "Republican" party would fade to historical footnote, with only a few adherents who occasionally run a candidate as a protest (maybe being nationalists hoping for a return of the USA).


 * Like I said, I can see that the nation as you have developed it would not have a viable "Republican" party. I just did not expect you to delete them out of a personal dislike for the present day American political party. I just re-read your remark on the article about the free elections. You are basing the result of their failure on "partisan bickering" - a bit of an over-simplication. Republicans and Democrats in America have historically had a different view of how government should be run. In the beginning (Abraham Lincoln) Republicans were the "bullies" that pushed government programs on the people. In the twentieth century that turned around, with the new Democratic approach (FDR) being the "top down" approach. The Republican Party under Eisenhower was largely nationalistic, seeking to separate the USA from the evils of Communism. The traditional values of the fifties became the hook which the party used to regain political power in the seventies. It has done a poor job in its claim to fight for "less government," and is now has in-fighting over that very thing.


 * Since you really didn't write a whole lot about the parties being reborn, perhaps you can consider editing that paragraph to incorporate a shift of "Republicanism" to Federalism, and a rise to prominence of the old Democratic principles - civil rights, family values, and all. The principles of local government and less government all together might be a "lost cause" after a quarter century of military rule, leaving the Republicans to fight on hopelessly (sort of like Libertarians of our day). SouthWriter 16:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Federalist Party is more a union party of former Republicans and a few Democrats (though most rejoined the reborn Democratic Party) created to replace the two pre-Doomsday political parties and give a resemblance to democracy in the early years of the Virginian Republic's existance. In those days the Virginian Republic was a single-party military dictatorship.

Yankovic270 16:56, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I sort of gathered that, but the nature of a a single-party dictatorship lead by Reagan loyalists in 1984 (Republicans and a few Democrats, as you put it) is hard to imagine. Reagan was elected saying "Government IS the problem."  Of course, having had Robert Byrd as Senator for almost twenty-five years (1959 to 1983, inclusive) the state was heavily Democratic.  If anything, the Federalist party would be made up of Byrd Democrats and some Republicans).  In OTL Byrd would become President pro tempore (4th in line to presidency, behind the speaker of the house) in 1989.  On DD, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was  President pro tempore.  Byrd recently died in office, having surpassed Thurmond's record by several years.  I say this to agree with what you say except for the part of "Republicans" becoming the backbone of the dictatorship.  I think it would be the Democrats.  The new Democrats would be of a different breed only in that they would be the ones demanding civil rights, etc.  This would give them more of a platform than the Republicans who would harp on "liberty" and "freedom" as do the Libertarians of our time line.  Having become used to "big government" Virginians would notably reject such pleas in favor of Federalism (central government) or "Democracy" (local government) -- key word being "government."  SouthWriter 17:56, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Forbes' List of Most Powerful People of 2009
I aso looked at this list (and did some research) Rupert Murdoch would have died as doomsday occurred on a Sunday Richard Branson might have survived --Owen1983 15:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Owen. How do you gather that Murdoch would have died since it was on Sunday? And please, use some punctuation! Your note above needs three periods. You didn't even put one at the end. I put the list there for folks to consider - others on the list may be worth persuing as well, but I did not know all the significance of all the names. SouthWriter 15:58, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

His birthplace was Melbourne[.] as As Sunday would be his day off[,] he would be at his residence.--Owen1983 16:06, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Though he was born in Melbourne, he was an international businessman. He became an American citizen in 1985 so he could own US television companies. The children of his second wife were born in the UK (in the 1970's), and his third wife was a recent Yale (that's in the US) grad, well after he moved to the US. It is not clear where he would have been on Sept. 25 and 26 of 1983. However, if you read the article on the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, you will find that the city of Melbourne was bombed on Monday afternoon, September 26, 1983. I agree, he probably died, but as to where, it is up to verification. I'd say he was probably in New York City, but that is just a guess. SouthWriter 16:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neonotia/Baxley
Seeing as I was the one who saddled you with the whole Anderson/Toccoa mess, I suppose I owe you one, or at least a few psychotic characters :) Your saboteurs would need to be able to pass not just as contractors, but as residents, because I doubt that Piedmont is going to let just anyone show up from out of the woods to do anything. These men would have had to be in the community for some time, building up trust with a populace that at the least would have been on heightened alert for whatever they thought the Toccoans represented. Pass yourself off as Piedmontian, then hightail it out of there before the attack goes down. For all you (or anyone there) knows, there could still be Toccoan agents in hiding, waiting for their chance to strike. --BrianD 03:46, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly as I envisioned it. In 2001, the war was far from over. But a sort of standstill had been reached. Early on in the war, spies would have infiltrated the republic acting as refugees. But instead of small acts of violence in Clemson and Pickens, for instance, these men (dare I say "and women") would have settled in to the conservative culture (largely still segregated) and become trusted citizens. All along, though, the plan was brewing to bring the Republic that had humiliated them to its knees. The auditorium, slated for destruction in 1998, would be preserved instead - needing contractors to keep it up to the needs of the capital city. The chance was there, and they took it! While making repairs, they plant explosives, turning a family-friendly celebration into an terrorist attack of unheard of atrocity.


 * The engineering firm that handles the maintenance and repair of the auditorium would have to be infiltrated, and then workers hired that would do the dirty work on the sly. The workers, of course, would be members of local churches - clean cut, respectable men - maybe even attending Bob Jones University. Real hypocrites putting on the act of their lives! If not Bob Jones (too expensive?), at least Tabernacle Bible College - on the fringe, not as "mainstream" in the political scene of the Republic. You could maybe even make the kingpin a Bible College grad (transfer from Toccoa Falls!) who preaches on weekends! We're talking real hypocrite here - a suave, smooth talking, certifialbe psychopath.


 * See, I can think like a demon as a deacon, even though I'm not even sure where Wake Forest is (somewhere in NC, the "Demon Deacons). >:-) SouthWriter 04:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC)|


 * So you will start the article on Toccoa, and I'll write up a few characters for you to use, then? Just so I'm clear as to what you're asking me to do. --BrianD 13:34, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a few Google Earth screen shots I made of Taccoa Falls and Taccoa. I can make a intro and lead-in paragraph based on the Athens article.  I'll put links to the war (and maybe a synopsis) and leave it open. SouthWriter 14:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Assiniboia
Yeah, it is a common misunderstanding, I bet. I used to live about 25 miles from the border with the US, and Minot AFB would have been about 50 miles away from the border, so say about 75 miles away? And its not like the USSR would have used a 20 megaton bomb to knock out a few silos, so It wouldn't have any major immediate consequences, except maybe some radiation, higher temperatures, and a massive increase in Cancer rates. Would that make sense? Tbguy1992 15:16, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * With all the warheads exploding in Europe and Asia, North America would certainly get some fallout circulating west to east (but only of airborne isotopes of atmospheric gases since there would have been few ground bursts. The radiation from North Dakota would be only "line of site" from the ground bursts there.  The bombed sites themselves, of course, would be radioactive for years due to dust and dirt mixing with the bombs' highly radioactive casings being "vaporized" in the attempt to seal off silos.  The higher temperatures would come as what has been determined for this time line as "nuclear summer" -- mostly ozone depletion, I believe.  That lack of protection would lead to increased cancer rates due to UV and other radiation not being blocked.  However, greater exposure to sunlight (working outside without sunblocker) would actually increase the vitamin D production in human skin leading to LESS cancer rather than more!  (Dirty little secret - sunlight HEALS when used in moderation).


 * Things would level out over the decades, I believe, and be almost back to normal by now in TTL. Your isolation would have kept you in good stead, I believe.  Winnepeg would be toast, but other than that your chances look good. SouthWriter 16:19, September 30, 2010 (UTC)