The Alternate History Wiki is a project for all communities concerned with creating fictional alternative histories. We hope you will feel at home here and wish you good luck contributing to our ever growing collection of alternative histories.
All articles on this wiki take the following fomat: Name of article (Name of AltHist). This rule does not apply to the main article of your AltHist wich you can simply give the name of your AltHist.
For links to other Alternative History related sites visit our links page.
Figure, given how far back on your page this section is, will start a new one.
I am not "lording" it over Kenny. He's been trying to put very unrealistic things, or things that are due to his own biases, into articles. I am not taking advantage of him at all, either - for the most part, my objections have been very minor with regards to his works, simple little fixes that have no real regard of the content of the articles in question. And, even these objections are actually compromises on my part.
He's put up plenty of things that I've haven't "approved," if you're going to use that language. If my voice is taken by anyone as "the authority" - note that I do not think that is true in the least - it's because in many cases, I'm the only one commenting on things around here. Unavoidable in that case.
His research, while admittedly very thorough, is also full of holes, as I have continually shown him. I've chosen to ignore most of it, if you'll notice.
I've not shared my opinion of him once, nor have I insulted him, far as I'm concerned, at all. I've helped him on several occasions, and continue to do so. I am indeed "playing nice." In fact, had I not "given" a little, and "played nice," I'd still be arguing that it should be obsolete, which, may I add, is where my personal opinion on the article still stands.
Now, Brian is going to do a slight intervention, at your request - which, may I add, was not needed - and can decide the matter between the two points. I'm done arguing with you about it. And, I have no vendetta against him or the article, but thanks for putting words I did not say, ever, into my mouth.
I am sorry if I offended you, but nothing I have said, or any of the changes that have been made have changed your mind on this article. I agreed with you on many things, and steered the article to a semblance of viability. Kenny's research was good, though not to your professional standards -- but you are the only trained historian working this wiki, so NO ONE can meet those. Kenny is young, and of course he is biased. But no article has to be perfect. You wanted to mark the article 'obsolete' from the very beginning! That is what I meant when I wrote the note to Brian. Here is what you seem to be reacting to:
Check out LG's sometime caustic critique of the article and Kenny's attempts at reconciling the article not just to canon but to what seems to me a 'brutal' realism. I have tried my best to moderate what seems to be a vendetta on the part of LG against this article.
Please note, I didn't "put words in your mouth," but carefully stated twice that this is what seems to be the case. As for rather or not you 'insulted' (your word, not mine) Kenny, I seem to remember defending myself against a charge of "insulting" you when I did in no way mean it either. You do not realize the way your opinion comes across, but you exude a confidence (to state in nicely) that your take on things is almost always right. It can be overbearing at times. That is, though just my opinion, and I could be wrong. SouthWriter 00:21, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Macau Rant
I'm really starting to be despondent at LG's recent antics. Sorry to involve you again, but I find an appeal to brass necessary. So basically you can see that I did a de facto adoption of Macau. LG continues to insist I am trying to be biased by temporarily moving the capital from 1987? to 2005? to this random city I never heard of. I would have never even thought of trying to promote Chinese …stuff in that way. I repeatedly explain all my backgrounds (see 1983DD talk page) and he keeps saying I'm biased. Okay he should just mind his own business and not care about my family heritage. He says I want to make Macau more Chinese on Arstar's talk page. I ask Arstar on his talk page simply whether he is allowing it and LG barges on the page and give his own reasoning. But no one asked him to say his reasoning. He keeps saying I am editing Macau without his permission but it doesn't, because he said I could do anything plausible that didn't interfere with canon. Please read what's been going on here, here, here, here, here, and here.
I really (to make assumptions that hurt other peoples' reputation) understand this is an honor thing. When I first proposed to changed the capital, LG declined. So naturally, he can't back out and save his dignity. I understand that, I do it too. So I ask you for your opinion. I am not going to argue here. This is not the place to argue about wind patterns. But I can't stand the amount of false accusations going around.
@LG. Using the space below please say whatever you want to say in the space below before SW has a chance to read this. I prithee. I'll even help you. "As I see it, Kenny is using this opportunity to promote his Chinese heritage because …" Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:14, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Kenny, it seems I beat LG to the punch this time. Thanks for the guided tour of the discussion. I had seen the exchange at the Macau and Main talk pages, but the other lines of discussion, especially that with Arstar, added a lot to the picture. It seems that even with your careful research, the moving of the capital - even temporarily - is not within the perimeters of what Arstar is willing to admit. Although you expanded the article quite a bit, when you moved the capital (regardless of the reason) it was beyond the permission to "only work on the economics and other asthetic changes."
Personally, I don't see how the city-state could have survived without a lot of help from the mainland anyway. It is a lot smaller than Hong Kong and its economy is far more dependent on a narrow industry that would almost instantly be reduced to nothing. Those that could would leave the island to be absorbed within the mainland population. However, Arstar apparently had already established a surviving population that includes some of the mainland with Macau as the capital. So I guess that is the way it will remain.
As for LG, he does seem to have it in for you. I have tried to reason with him, but he seems set in his ways. He is starting to be getting used to me being there to defend 'the little guy,' but I cannot just disagree to disagree. If LG had been around earlier, he may have given Yank and Arstar a hard time as well. Mitro gave them some trouble, but the tone did not seem too bad. Sunkist, on the other hand, seemed to draw the critic out of LG with a vengeance. I don't think he has anything 'personal' against you, but his expertise as a historian has him on guard to push for accuracy and 'realism' wherever he can. SouthWriter 04:35, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
I agreed with you at first. I didn't think Macau could have survived considering 90% of its economy is gambling (some statistic like that). But anyway, I have the right to post a request on someone's talk page without an immediate argument? I'm not asking you to disagree, I just need a way to counter the assumptions and false accusations against my cultural ties without having to give away my entire family history beginning with Adam and Eve. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:59, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
As for Kenny, I have every right to counter you, when you make an argument against me, especially in cases when if I do not, the only thing, like with Arstar atm, that will be seen is your post and not what led to it. But, you don't seem to get that. Looking at your work in general, it is obvious that you have biases and make assumptions in some cases based on them. Far as I can see, despite you not thinking it so, this is one of them. Not to say I don;t have my own, but I bet you can;t figure out what they actually are ;) Lordganon 05:06, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, Kenny and Sun don't listen, far as I'm concerned. Even Caer does that, and you know my opinion of him. Nothing personal, at all - Remember all the little guys I've defended, especially Ven? - I'm always willing to help and offer advice, and sometimes its taken in the wrong way, like with Kenny and Sun. In this case, I know exactly what Arstar gave him permission to do, and he's now trying to do more than that. Even Yank, who along with Arstar created it originally, despite leaving an angry note on my talk page, ended up agreeing once he saw what Arstar told Kenny he could do. As for tone, I'm just not as willing to sugar-coat as Mitro is/was, lol - and being stubborn doesn't help either, xD.
As for Kenny, I have every right to counter you, when you make an argument against me, especially in cases when if I do not, the only thing, like with Arstar atm, that will be seen is your post and not what led to it. But, you don't seem to get that. Looking at your work in general, it is obvious that you have biases and make assumptions in some cases based on them. Far as I can see, despite you not thinking it so, this is one of them. Not to say I don;t have my own, but I bet you can;t figure out what they actually are ;) Lordganon 05:06, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Hi, LG, glad to see you could make it. I tried posting the post above yours about the same time you did. And you, know, a little sugar wouldn't hurt. I tried to look back on your talk posts but you have posted so much, I couldn't follow much of them. It seems that you may have become a little more critical as you became an administrator, but I may be wrong. I think it is your chosen field of study that brings you to such a critical state, but then that is just my opinion. I would hope, really, that you are not so caustic in 'real life.' Anyway, take it from a man at least your father's age - with training in dealing with people - you do need to check your attitude. You can 'disagree without being disagreeable,' as the saying goes. And now, I am going to bed because it is now after 1 in the morning where I am. SouthWriter 05:22, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
I'm heading to bed myself but I'd thought I'd add a few things. First of all, it wasn't a change. There was no statement that said Macau was the capital of Macau for x period of time. Secondly, @LG I appreciate your trying to help but accusations do NOT help. Bias is something you should address in referring to the tone of an article, not to rub in peoples' faces during arguments.
I have biases, true, but what I do usually is I try to put everything in the most positive light possible. What may appear bias is that. If it looks like I'm glorifying terrorism in Piura or Stroessner's dictatorship (do I?) it's just my attempts to see that point of view, because honestly those go against everything I stand for. That way it prevents me from being biased in my writing. I might periodically change the articles to make them more neutral but it's better than wanking. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:39, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
The last word you used got me to looking for the verb in the dictionary - it's a good thing dictionary.com is thorough or I'd be quite displeased! I can only assume that your use of 'wanking' is applying the term to the an excessive use of cleverness. This term is slang used of computer hacks for their hacking and of 'talking shop' with other hackers. It is, however, very rude and offensive to those who speak 'the Queen's English' - that is, Brits and members of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, LG is Canadian, so I hope you were not baiting him with offensive language.
I don't really see any problem writing from one's biases, for true neutral point of view is not necessary in writing for this wiki, and especially for the 1983DD time line. However, the WCRB was created to try to get the neutral bystander flavor to the time line. Technically, all articles should be from the point of view of an agent WCRB with any material with a bias being 'quoted' as source material. If this were exactly like Wikipedia there would be no question that bias would be weeded out by the community. Having said that, we all need to guard against bias and prejudice in order to make the stories more interesting and, perhaps, more accurate to how the alternate history might actually work out.
For instance, your handling of the Peru article shows your political bias. You made sure a trouble-maker was out of the country or 'under the radar' on doomsday so as to allow for a more positive Fujimori government. Your creation of Castellon was originally an extension of Peru. Now, you take on Macau to add life to an ancestral home in a post-apocalyptic world. For some reason, LG has chosen to make a point with first Sunkist and now with you, that biased 'reporting' is not to be tolerated. I can only say that it is to be guarded against. Put your self in the head of a foreign reporter in a far away land. What would he see? How would he react to what he saw? SouthWriter 15:13, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
I felt I would add a personal touch that only I could provide. If there are two equally possible choices in an Althist on a path for history, wouldn't an individual, most of the time, pick the one that favors them? Not every time, but more than 50%. With the variety of people from different backgrounds on the site, isn't this healthy?
Also, I really cannot attest to any bias in Macau. I honestly didn't care how lively or humble the state itself was so long as I could write about that area. I would have no idea whether my long-lost relatives would be starving, bickering on the outskirts of Guangzhou, fighting in the ranks of the Pearl River Liberation Society, or working in Macanese-owned factories in Dongguan, or actually owning those factories from the island, because I don't know anything about them except they were Cantonese. That could mean Macau, note the flag on my userpage that I decided to use to represent Guangdong. I didn't use the ROC flag, which would have been more accurate and would have promoted my INFATUATION of Chinese people and things </sarcasm>, or even the flag of Hong Kong, which would have made more sense, but I chose Macau because early Chinese Peruvians have connections to Macau, not Hong Kong, and some of my relatives probably came earlier than the ROC. This is what I keep trying to say but LG is trying to keep insisting I have bias for some reason.
Honestly I understand the importance of this but bias is not something to accuse someone of in an argument, because it is impossible to prove or disprove. LG keeps trying to shove in my face how biased I am because of some random reason in an argument about wind patterns or something… What does he expect me to do, say I'm biased and gve him the argument? Like seriously that's just slander to ruin my reputation in front of others who read the argument and/or to give him the impression of winning, and it seriously does not feel good… It doesn't matter how biased I am, he shouldn't make assumptions like that to prove I am wrong in an argument. Especially this last one. "this is just Kenny being biased against Macau itself and in favor of the entirely Chinese regions inland." Directly to Arstar on his talk page. How is that not slander, even if it was true?
And sorry to use that term. I've seen it on the site multiple times meaning something along the lines of "creating an excessively biased timeline or article for the purpose of glorifying a country, person, or cause." It was sort of just an in-context type-thing; it isn't in any dictionaries… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:14, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Rest assured, that's not offensive to Canadians.
South, it's mostly that it's so obvious. I'm all for people giving insight into regions like that, and even in some cases making states. We're all biased to a degree, but with both Kenny and Sun, it's beyond that in some regards, as you yourself have noticed.
Actually, I am saying you are biased because, though you obviously do not realize it, you are, to some degree, biased with regards to Chinese and China - your writing shows it readily - and are definitely biased in other regards, as South pointed out. While some is expected, it's beyond that. Your early posts with regards to Macau, whether you realize it or not, show a dislike for the city and the Portuguese there, and this is just more of that. And, note that I have not once claimed that he is "infatuated" with it, just that he unconsciously leans that way. Not an assumption, but an observation. I have every right to both give Arstar information, and my opinion, as well as why I think he is doing it - not that Kenny thinks I am entitled to that, despite Arstar's wishes that I watch things for him.
The wind patterns have nothing to do with the matter. Just faulty reasoning, nothing to do with bias. (He is trying to use ground winds to prove he is right, when those have little to no effect on radiation, since it goes into the air)
As for slander, within the context used, it means either:
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
As far as I'm concerned, it is true - so, then, how is it false? How is it slander?
Now, why are we even talking about this? South already said that you went beyond your permission. That should have been the end of it. Sheesh.
You do realize I am white too? I'm only part Chinese, and isn't Peru essentially the same as Macau? Mix of cultures? What would possibly make me biased from the chifas and Corporation Wong and other Chinese Peruvian crap? Read the Wikipedia on Chinese Peruvian people and look beyond whatever stereotypes the people are not as Chinese-obsessed, they just go to Chinese schools (why am I explaining this?). Just because I removed most Portuguese culture out of Macau doesn't make me biased. It means that I don't believe a small island of Portuguese culture will survive when surrounded by Chinese culture for 28 years. It happens. Why are so many languages dying around the world? And surprise surprise, no one cares about your opinion so if it hurts another person you should keep it to yourself. And no it's not for the greater good. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:44, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize to me, LG, but I would say apologies are due to Kenny. "As far as I'm concerned" does not cut it. Perception is the key here, and you are perceived by others as overbearing and obnoxious. When called on it, you say it does not seem that way to you. None of us are perfect, LG, and unless we are trained professionals, psychoanalyzing others is not a tool we can use to win arguments. Even with professionals they use their skills 'professionally' (you'd think!) by keeping the analysis within clinical perimeters.
It may not be technically 'slander,' but I would say that your charges of bias and even prejudice with no more than your psycho-analysis are most definitely 'defamation.' Your constant talking 'down' to Kenny, and assuming motives that you cannot not know, indeed are seeking to lower his esteem before other editors in the community. You butt in on discussions with others to claim authority over decisions he is only discussing, seeking to debunk them at every turn. This can hardly be considered civil. It is a form of bullying. I have been patient with you, but I may have to take this up with Brian and the other Brass if it keeps up.
Kenny, you certainly expanded the article, even getting some of the Macannese all the way to Peru! I am surprised that there weren't some challenges with all the changes. We are in agreement that the Portuguese police force led by the former governor turned 'president' could not have lasted long without essentially taking over the surrounding area. With their structured government (at the time jointly Chinese and Portuguese) they could have pulled it off. The success on the mainland, though, could not have happened without the dominate Chinese being a large part of the new government. I agree, the Portuguese would have been displaced in importance fairly quickly. As you can see, I am coming down on LG, but I must say, your attitude is turning sour as well. I can't say I blame you, but please, refrain from the sarcasm and spite. We all need to seek to be civil in this community. SouthWriter 03:22, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
Let's end this peacefully. DK gets to add what he wants to add, and you get to walk away with this with at least some of your dignity left LG. Let me be perfectly frank with you. You have acted like a pompous ass the entire time over absolutely nothing. You thought you were acting "civil", but you were really acting like a childish bully. You thought you were following Arstar's wishes, but he only said to keep the nation the same size. This affair was caused by you and your vulgar abuse of the power of your position as caretaker of Macau while Arstar's away. The blame falls quarely on your shoulders.I only "agreed" with you in the begining because I had the impression that DK had committed some violation against Arstar's wishes. But, as it turned out, the "violation" was just an excuse for you to throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat.
Yank 04:40, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Yank and SW that we need to get this solved as civilly as possible with as little heartbreak as possible. The change will be made, and all discussion concerning Macau's capital will be archived to a remote corner of the site. LG can keep his dignity and we'll put this behind us. Is that agreeable? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 06:32, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
USA (February's Legacy) - Re: Flag
There are actualy a few examples of nationalistic paties defacing the flag of their country with their logo once in power or even keeping the colours but changing the design. America First Party simply added their logo to show the new order and removing the stars is a more or less symbol of the fact that the country is now a more unified one.--Marcpasquin 13:37, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
South I would like
South I would like to know what you think of the guided hand Page concept.Empire1994 02:51, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
Some more ideas for TA
Hey South, please forgive me for bothering you like this, but I wanted to let you know that I have proposed some new changes to the timeline that I wanted to get your opinion on. I have been getting back into the timeline lately, and I have been having exploding ideas to complete the timeline more. I can't do it without you, man. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:32, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
Wasteland Europe
Not a problem, South. I was part of Wasteland Europe too, after all - but just like everyone else my attention died pretty fast. Perhaps rebooting the whole project is a possibility. Either way, that comment wasn't meant to be belligerent in any way, it was just a little... pendaticism. My forte. Sorry if it sounded like that. Fegaxeyl 09:06, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
Mirror Universe World
Mirror Universe World: I got your messages on my page for Mirror Universe World. The Mirrror Universe isn't as simple as making all good guys bad and vise versa. For one Stalin was much more brutal for example. Since the lack of a POD seems to have been a major factor in my timeline being assigned Alien Space Bats, I need to fix that. What would be a good point of divergence for that timeline?Experiment632 12:18, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
I can see where an alternate universe need not be a diametrically reverse, and neither need it be just 'backwards' as in the interesting case of the "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (B-grade sci-fi, ends badly). After reviewing the original "Mirror, Mirror" of Star Trek, I have to agree, all characters and nations need not be precisely reversed.
As for how you can turn this into an alternate history rather than an alternate universe, I think you'll have to go back to ancient Greece, the birthplace of "Western Civilization." I tried to find the reference to these beginnings online, but I distinctly remember certain patterns of thinking seemed to have changed several centries BC. Take a look at the Greek philosophers. It was Epicurius that taught that 'pleasure' was the highest good. He was also a materialist, defying the intervention of 'the gods.' Though he felt that 'pleasure' came at no one's expense - neither harm or be harmed - other philosophies developed that warped his hedonism. Perhaps the Romans could have been more influenced by some of their barbarian predecessors who had to live by their wits in the harsh northern parts of what became Europe.
Whatever the divergence, if removed from the present by two millenia, it can set the stage for a more violent "West." The eastern empires, then, could proceed much as they did in our time line at least until they clashed with the more agressive west. Assume a militant edge to history but with much the same development in history. For simplicity's sake, keep the noticeable POD close at hand, perhaps with Teddy Roosevelt taking advantage of his rise to power (maybe even being in on Harding's assassination?). That way, the US could begin its climb to world domination. [By the way, the Terra Nova Flag IS a rip off of one of the Terran Empire's flags (22nd century, whole world!) -- a clear indication that this history is influenced by the Star Trek "Mirror Universe!]
Suggested lead in:
The Butterfly Effect is the prime mover in alternate histories. In this history the small decisions of disciples of such philosophers as Epicurius in the third century before Christ turned reasonable men into ruthless predators in a world where every person of influence seemed to put himself first. As the Spanish and Portuguese step foot on new lands, their ruthlessness was untempered by any missionary zeal. In this world, Christianity had never become official, so Conquistadors rebuilt the 'new world' after their own image. The British, a hundred years later, were able to take much of North America away from both the Spanish and the native Americans. In the 1770's the colonists followed the example of the French in a bloody revolution with little regard to many of the freedoms known in our time line.
The Rise of the North American Empire, renamed Terra Nova in the twentieth century, was brutal to the weak and rewarding to the strong. The US began its rise by taking over Canada from the British in the years following its second war with that struggling Empire. Less than a century later, after the government had crushed a rebellion of its own and extended its powers over the so-called states (in reality these became provinces), a war with Spain yielded all the land north of the Panama isthmus as booty. By the end of the 'Great War' in Europe, colonial nations in South America began to crumble to the Empirical US government. At the brink of the Second World War, all of the Western Hemisphere, from Bermuda to the Philippines, was part of the empire.
You are welcome to digest that into a shorter statement, use it as is, or just get an idea as to how the Mirror Universe of the Star Trek universe could have 'evolved' as it did. Then, your alternate history will make a great back story for Trekkies everywhere! --SouthWriter 21:59, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
LordGanon
I want to talk to you about LordGanon's recent behavior. He seems to have taken it upon himself to become the wiki's Simon Cowell. Whenever someone like Mitro critisized someone, the purpose was to help improve the article. Whenever LG critisizes an article (or idea) the only purpose I can distinguish is LG's need to throw his "superior" knowledge into the face of the person creating it. All his recent comments reek of smug snobbish superiority. They basically tell the user opposing him "I'm right, and you are a complete idiot for thinking otherwise". Do we really need people like this in our wiki? I understand the need to regulate plausibility, but he seeks only to insult and demean any idea he has the slightest offense with. He's become a cyber-bully, plain and simple. Any person who demeans another person or his/her work for their own purposes is a bully.
Yank 19:59, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed the attitude getting worse. I am not sure if granting him "Brass" status was a good idea, though he does seem to have a good grasp on world history as far as that goes. However, I want to discuss this 'in the open,' for it is delicate and needs some private discussions before much can be done about it. I see, though, that you have posted a complaint to the TSPTF talk page, which is a good first step. I have posted a response there to your complaint. SouthWriter 00:41, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Pep Talk
Hello, I want to say that I really appreciate your pep-talk, it helped. I will go through the proper channels this time. And thank you again for your suggestion about the independent space program on the 1983DD Mexico timeline. I do have a soft spot for Mexico since I'm from there, lol. It was also very nice to meet you. --Libra-11
No problem, Libra. Too often I miss new comers and fail to greet them properly. I am an adminitrator for the whole wiki, so if you have an idea for a new time line, feel free to bounce it off me if you want. A native Mexican would be a welcome addition to the 1983DD time line editors as well. I am sure BrianD, presently of Kentucky, would love to have your input as he tries to make sense of Mexico in a post-apocolyptic world.
By the way, please remember to 'sign' your posts by clicking on the "signature" button above or by adding three (name only) or four (name and time) tildes (Shift + ` in the far left of American keyboards). SouthWriter 00:23, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the tips, they came in handy. I've submmitted my proposal on the proposals page and to BrianD as well. Libra-11 00:54, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Beggining of the End
Thanks for clarifing that to me. I didn't quite know what "secret history" meant and so I just assumed (and assumed wrong). I still need to find a valid POD or multiple POD's that explain the reason for no nuclear weapons.
As to the constant world wars, I was thinking that actually there is only WW3, not WW4 (got a little carried away), and that the WW3 last for multiple decades, although sometimes there is an unoffical truce in place that subsequently gets broken and the war starts off again.
The reason for WW3 could be that, at the end of WW2, Japan is invaded and its teritorial possesions are split up among the victorious allies, including the USSR. When the Korean War happens (and it will in this TL), I think that some kind of border infringments in Japan would cause the USSR (which is looking for a reason for the war anyway) to jion in, causing a massive world war which will eventually drive the world to the ground Roguejedi 19:38, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
As much fun as doomsday scenarios are <sarcasm>, I don't see the USSR wanting World War to continue. They had lost too much in WW 2, and the defeat of Japan without their help was just fine with them. They ended the war gaining quite a lot as the US caved on principle, allowing communism to grow almost unhindered for the time being. The invasion of Japan would have cost thousands of US and Allied lives, possibly reducing the threat of their being a deterent to Soviet expansionism. Instead of a cold war, there may have been a bit of diplomatic tension with the UN becoming more powerful. Proxy wars, then, would lead to UN involvement all over the world and perhaps even the rise of a "new world order" where there is the dreaded "one-world government." That in itself might be the "Beginning of the End," as nationalists worldwide reject the idea and start rebellions against the "United Earth" concept.
Any way, that is where I might take it. But I look forward to seeing how you take this. If you want a POD, I'd say look back to the early days of nuclear physics - maybe even before Einstein, and eliminate a developing strand of thought. Einstein did not start from scratch, so look back before him. SouthWriter 20:19, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
:This is not excaclty Doomsday, but the "one world order" would be interesting to do, but I still think a WW3 would be very plausible in this circumstance. the USSR had lost a lot in WW2, but gained a whole lot more after the war. I have a couple of books from the library about the USSR, so I will look in them for a time in history where the USSR would have gone to war except for the ever-present nuclear weapons.
I don't think that a "one world order" would come out of a few proxy wars, with all the hatered between countries in it, but a world war, especially a long one with no viable way to end it would, eventually, create the need for a world order, which I will probably add (I love controlling the world).
:I also have another idea for a cause of WW3. When the Korean War occurs and China joins North Korea, the US and NATO could declare direct war on China, escalating to an invasion of China and eventually, the USSR would join, and so on and so forth....
:Okay, here's another idea. The USSR does not get into WW3, and comes out the most powerful nation on earth, surrounded by broken nations. It starts the "one world order" idea, and is able to carry it out for the most part. Some nations, especially democratic nations, try to oppose the new Communist world, and lead to an ongoing "War for Freedom" Roguejedi 21:20, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
A Thanks!!
I just needed to thank u for welcoming to this wiki now and the first time (as user: 81.131.124.48). Thanks again!! :) Imperium Guy 21:05, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
Lincoln
I thank you for give me fair warning in advance. I've erased the mention of the offending cities from the article. What do you mean "move my claimed area"? Does that mean I switch Lincoln's atention from Northern Nebraska to Northeast Kansas and Nothwest Missouri?
Yank 17:08, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, the government in and around the city of Lincoln would not have had the wherewithal to control the whole state, even if they did have legitimate claim to it (having been the capital of the state before Doomsday). Therefore, it would seek instead to control what was nearby and easily patrolled - that is, the River dividing the state north from south. The "claimed areas" of any other states adjacent to the OTL borders would be agressive behavior not in step with their isolationist and passivist nature. It would be good to reclaim the whole state, for sure, but that is not the way of the Lincolnites. Given the knowledge of 'another Nebraska,' they would either go to war for their "rights," or compromise with an equitable split of the land (preferably to some that they could actually, and easily, control).
As I said, Nebraska, USA, might possibly need a little continuity down to Kansas. But other than that, the land south of the Platte seems ideal for what Lincoln has become. To 'demand' the whole state is not a logical move on Lincoln's part (unless the 'united we stand, ...' part of Abraham Lincoln is the driving philosophy!). Does the state want another "civil war"? A united Nebraska is not out of the question, but an independent, not to mention land-locked (apart from the Missouri River), nation may be a bit more than the founding fathers of "the Republic of Lincoln" had envisioned. Expanding just for the sake of expanding would not be the question, it is a matter of sovereignty.
The other issue with the article, the liberal (libertarian?) constitutional ammendments that I addressed earlier, cannot be ignored. Your answer, though touching, was not satisfactory. I can feel for your loss, and my wife works with end of life situations daily, but the ending of life due to suffering is not an answer in a constitutional democracy such as Lincoln. Your answer dealt with euthanasia rather than abortion, but as it stands, the 'amendment' to the constitution allowing 'abortion' for a deformity or fatal conditions is cruel and inhumane. In fact, what you state is infanticide, for it mentions the infant in a condition that cannot be known fully until after it is born. Like I said elsewhere, it would be better to leave the laws of the state of Nebraska in place when it came to abortion, not to mention infanticide!
Also, the state would not have been on the leading edge of "gay rights" in the 1980's, but if the amendment states that since marriage is a legal contract, a partnership, no matter the persons involved, viewed the same under the law. That way, it would be logical for people to make arrangements for themselves knowing that the law was the same (even if 'people' did not understand) and church-state issues are avoided. SouthWriter 20:24, July 27, 2011 (UTC)
India
Most of the India article is on the UIP, and their actions in India. And, that section of text is already said through the text above that part on the article. The other nations are barely mentioned elsewhere in the article, if at all, so they need the descriptions. I figure the UIP doesn't need one, because it already says basically the same thing further up on the page, and you're not getting down that far without seeing it. Lordganon 16:47, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
South, the format was obviously wrong - if you look at the edit history, you'll see that it was pretty noticeable - and there is nothing insulting at all about that. He claimed on my talk page to have copied and pasted it, yet if had done so, it would have been correct.
And, following precedent set by Mitro - which I agree with - since not one of those was correct, they got removed immediately.
Note that you failed to do it correctly as well, but to be done with this I will change it to be correct. But I won't do it again.
LG, I reviewed the logs, and the two times that Mitro dealt with the problem of format, he complained and then FIXED it. This was with Venezula in September of 2010 and Bobalugee in March of 2011. Yes, it was Boblugee, and no, Mtro did not "remove it immediately." He was patient and corrected the minor error.
And yes, and if I can make a mistake, so can Boblugee. Thank you for catching that. None of us is perfect, I copied from the actual entry and pasted in Visual mode. I knew it didn't look right, but I was distracted (real life) and did not go back after seeing it had been published. Why is so hard to be nice, LG? SouthWriter 19:08, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
And I've talked to him about it in the past too. He knows better, and I know that. Nor did I once say that Mitro "removed immediately." Precedent is that they are improper, and that remains as such.
And, for the record, I was nice - Bob is the one that needs an attitude adjustment. Have a look at the history of his talk page - you'll note I removed the "Final Warning."
I'm not talking about this any longer. He was in the wrong, and failed to rectify it. You've chosen to make an issue out of a non-issue. And that is all I have to say.
Not a problem, South! We British have a thing for brevity, after all. ;-) I'll hang in here, alright - on your side in this little power schism we have. Fegaxeyl 22:29, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the definition of "jobsworth" is:
"A person in authority (esp. a minor official) who insists on adhering to rules and regulations or bureaucratic procedures even at the expense of common sense"
Going by that, Feg called me an idiot. Just to be perfectly clear.
You'll note I am answering here, since it just makes more sense even if the "custom" is to bounce between talk pages. At least, it makes more sense to me. Anyway, I would not have mentioned it on Feg's talk page (I'm guessing you read what I wrote over there since none of these user talk pages have a bit of privacy!), if I had not read the definition. It piqued my attention when he used it on Bob's talk page. I was careful not to 'mention names' when I commented, but it's no secret I was agreeing with Feg on your recent behavior and attitudes.
That definition says nothing of the mental abilities of a jobsworth, only of their behavior. Common sense does not require intelligence, just a little bit of discernment. Bureaucrats that fit the definition are undoubtedly very intelligent. Feg did not call your an 'idiot,' he called you a 'jobsworth.' Words mean things, LG, and Feg chose a good word that described what he saw happening in this situation. You have accused me of insulting you, even after I in good faith explained everything I said as meaning no offense, so I know you are 'thin skinned.' Yes, Feg meant that term as a rebuke, though he only wrote, "Does the word 'jobsworth' mean anything to you?" - technically only insinuating he was talking about you. Yes, he was talking about you, but he couched in such a way as to let YOU come to the conclusion. Plausible deniability, of a sort, I guess.
About the process of removal due to form, I just reviewed the log for the Nomination page, and, contrary to what you said on Bob's talk page yesterday, it was you, not Mitro who added the rule to 'control' all those inexperienced young editors that can't seem to follow simple instructions. Hmm, kids will be kids, or something like that. You had been removing nominations for a couple of weeks, and then notifying the 'victims,' apparently after having taken over for Mitro. And then, four days after Mitro retired, you add the rule on March 31. So, where Mitro patiently changed the errant nominations, it was you who got impatient, putting the line about removal due to incorrect format. NOW it was clear, folks have been warned right there on the page! <sarcasm>
And so, it wasn't about Bobalugee, and I apologize for not more thoroughly investigating the log. Apparently, even with the suggestion (Please ...) to cut and paste for simplicity, some people think they can put in format that does not 'fit the standard' and get away with it. You are enforcing the rule, to the letter, which you yourself inserted on March 31. Bob seems a little more mature than some of the others, but he is just the first one since June 2 (over two months!) to dare put up a nomination under the new regiment. And so, yes, LG, you are acting like a bureaucrat adhering to a rule you wrote to 'force' editors to do things the right way. Hopefully, the changes I made to the page (showing what it is supposed to look like) will keep others from failing in this task. SouthWriter 20:02, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
To say that someone does something at the "expense of common sense" is to call them an idiot. And I have not done so "at the expense of common sense" once.
I added it to the page, true enough. But you did not bother to look anywhere else, obviously, or you would know just how wrong you just were.
"I am at wits end about this. I wrote the exact format for how nominations are to be presented under the section titled "Sample Nomination". All anyone has to do is copy it directly and insert the correct information. Simple right? Then why the hell has the last several nominations failed to do this? Is that hard to copy and paste something? Is there something confusing about the directions? Unless I hear some sort of logical explanation, for now on I am removing any nomination that does not follow the correct format. I am sorry if this is an overreaction to a minor problem, but I fail to grasp how people who are skilled enough to use a computer are incapable of following simple directions! Mitro 16:01, March 21, 2011 (UTC)"
Note the bolded parts. Mitro said that 11 days before I put in that line. I put a rule that he explicitly said on the talk page onto the article page so that everyone would know and we'd avoid any trouble because of it (guess I was wrong there, eh?) But I guess you didn't see that, did you?
No, LG, I did not see that. Again, I apologize for not researching the talk page. However, it does not change the fact that you wrote that Mitro had made the change. I can understand now why you made the rule, though as Mitro admits it was an "overreaction to a minor problem.' There is obviously a problem in the 'cut and paste' proceedure. For one, the "non-wiki" tags will mess things up if the editor choses to use 'source mode' (it happened with one attempt by Alexanders I believe). Second, If you take an actual nomination as the template instead of the sample (as I did with Bobalugee's in an attempt to maintain his signature as a link), the formatting disappears. If you take this copy and transfer it to source mode, you lose the formatting (the reverse of the problem faced by Alex).
I can understand Mitro's being stressed out over it, and it is plain that it wasn't the wiki that was stressing him out. Because of the pressures of life - new marriage, new carreer, etc. - he resigned active wiki duties soon thereafter. You have done an admirable job of filling in the gap left when he left, and I regret I have not been able to do as much as I would like (I, too, am facing quite a bit of stress). Hopefully I can continue to be active. There are so few nominations for featured article - and hardly any feedback when there are nominations (good or bad), that pouncing on these format problems is the wrong approach. It is not so much trouble to just change the formatting (a few key strokes in Visual Mode) when an othewise correct format (all the lines, but not formatted) is there.
I am sorry to have come down on you the way I did. And I have changed the page to hopefully prevent further mistakes that would require your attention on this manner. This wiki is not worth so much stress as to have each other at one another's throats. Keep up the good work and try to see things through the eyes of others when it comes to conflict resolution. SouthWriter 21:23, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Re:Castellón
I would appreciate the help you can offer. Would it be too much trouble for you to just rewrite it how you think it would be accepted? I want to put this water under the bridge. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:45, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! If this is the final version that has no further debates, feel free to put it up. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:22, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Re:Constable Nomination
Excuse me for not noticing the nomination; it must have escaped my notice among the various bot edits. I would be glad to accept the nomination. Although I might not be fully active during the school year, I will do my best to perform the necessary duties. Also I've done a little bit of anti-vandalism work, and tried to monitor map games for sockpuppetry so I would appreciate further rights. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:04, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Quite frankly, LG has overstepped the bounds of abusing his power by objecting. Not the fact that he objected, but the way he's trying to smear me and ruin my reputation. Seriously, I'm one of the first people ever to be objected for personal qualities, and that hurts. Not only that, but he's presenting his arguments in the most offensive possible way. I think the fact that he's turning the website into a dictatorship is a lot better reason to kick him off TSPTF than implausibility would ever be. Clearly he believes if I were appointed to TSPTF, I would pose a threat to his power, so I am going to do just that. Once the verdict over my TSPTF request passes, would you support (you can finish the sentence)? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:37, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
I am well within my rights to object to a nomination when I feel that the candidate is unsuitable, and when asked to do so, to state my reasons. Reasons I have stated elsewhere on several occasions. And now making an objection is "abusing my power?" Seriously? There's nothing I can do about it if I lose the vote, simple enough. Kenny needs to take a chill pill. Lordganon 01:07, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Kenny, a constable has very little 'power' when it comes to influencing the decisions of 'the Brass.' An attitude of spitefullness will not get you very far on the TSPTF. In fact, it would be grounds for dismissal from the administration.
LG, it was not the objection that was unsuitable, but rather the way in which you stated it. You compounded the problem by continuing the personal attack in the discussion section. To properly submit an objection, reasons should be presented - either in the objection or in discussion. Personal editing style matters little in the choice of a Constable. Qualifications for the job are to help control vandalism and trolls. SouthWriter 14:03, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Alaska
Near as I can see, Vlad hasn't given anything about it to anyone, so it's still him in charge. More or less means that we get to watch it, I suppose, lol. Lordganon 14:20, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Republic of Vinland
That is all true... I think we should at first have the vikings dominate North America but then lose much of it to antoher nations,
Well, Alex, being a major power in the 20th century would indeed carry over into the 21st century. The Vinlandese (is that right?) would have a very long history, and probably control much of OTL eastern Canada. It just needs to stay away from controlling "New England" in order for the reduced USA to work the way that it's creator wishes. SouthWriter 21:33, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
Edits in Abraham Lincoln
You're welcome, South. Yes, i think the same about the anon. By the way, you and the others go to continue with Two Americas? Is an great timeline, I like to read it. :D Regards! --Katholico 22:23, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I like the project. It's NuclearVacuum's idea and I started making suggestions and he let me on board. He gave it a "reboot" a little while back and I am trying to readjust to his changes. The idea to allow Abraham Lincoln to live was his. It meant changing the chart of presidents and the blurb I wrote about Andrew Johnson, but I think it still will work well. Nuke's a transplant to the south, and I live here, so I have made it a little less radical as to the nature of the CSA after the war. SouthWriter 00:28, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
oh, i see, yes, i too noticed some differences between the articles and the CSA maps, which including now northern mexico... By the way, this remember to me, that maybe you could help me in an matter?... i'm working in an timeline in the spanish wikia, and one of things which i'm trying to resolve is about what would result from a US defeat in the mexican-american war. i mean, what could happen with the elections in the next years for example (i wrote that Zachary Taylor died in the war)... and this how could affect the date of begin of the american civil war? this could be trigger before o later? If you can tell me your opinion I will be grateful. Regards! --Katholico 00:21, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oh thanks ver much for!! Yep, this is very very useful for my timeline :) Two things:
1) Curiously... the election of Lincoln in 1861 and a civil war in this date (or early) seem to be something "inevitable" according several opinions what i read in internet. jeje but, there is not any possibility of that the civil war take place couple of years later? I must confess that i wrote originally in my timeline that the civil war begin in 1873... jeje now that i'm revising several things in the timeline, i think that maybe that's impossible xD
2) The other, how probable is that US could achieve the support from France and/or Great Britain, or another european power? I believed that they were more inclined to support the CSA? --Katholico 21:32, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
OK, i will think very well in the foreign intervention in the conflict. For the other, which you suggest is the best form for to prevent the election of Lincoln in 1860? He lost somehow the nomination for this time (but gain for a next time)? or one of other presidential candidates achieve the support from more political sectors? In any case, i assume that the civil war not could be postponed for much years, right? Regards and thanks! --Katholico 02:03, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
Perfect... mmmm a map for the this elections maybe i will have to make later, but for now, is enough for me, just to have decided who would be president. In any case, until when you think could be postponed the war? With a Breckinridge's presidency we have four years more, but i assume that the tensions still would be in increase... as i said before i originally in my timeline wrote that the civil war begin after the election of Lincoln but in 1872 (jeje ^^U), and probably this would be unlikely... what thinks? 1864, 1868 or 1872? Thanks, Regards! --Katholico 00:15, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
mmm, then, if I understand you well, you say that the best choise could be the 1864 elections, with Lincoln/Seward as candidates against Breckinridge who would run for the reelection. Lincoln won but an possible threat of another war with Mexico moves the focus of attention of all country to this situation. And when this is resolve, the Southern states finally rebels against the Union government in 1868, right? (so, this before or later to the probable reelection of Lincoln?). About Mexico, this new tensions with US, i think that are probables in my timeline (i'm still working in the history of Mexico, but at least, the french intevention and the second mexican empire not will happen here). Thanks once more! --Katholico 06:20, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
PS: Here is the list of president that i'm making, the timeline is still in construction, and several articles are under revision jeje ^_^ Then, don't be surprised if you see many incoherences xD --Katholico 03:34, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, thanks :) Yeap, the Two Americas idea i liked (and the fates of Lee and Grant sound great! :)). At first, i wrote the victory of the union, but now probably could be a good option for my timeline, because i planned to transform to Brazil and Mexico in the powers of America continent during the XX Century. However, you think that would be possible an reunification before 1950, maybe as result of a new war with a Northern victory? And, for the second term of Lincoln in 1868, the vicepresident should be Seward again o Andrew Johnson? --Katholico 05:04, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much South! :D I will follow this for continue my timeline. I read the list of presidents of the CSA in Two Americas, and i noticed that the Democrats control the government for more of 80 years. :O There is other political parties in the CSA after his foundation? Regards! --Katholico 18:56, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Understood. What parties you consider that could emerge? With this, I could make me an idea for the CSA of my timeline. Regards! --Katholico 19:43, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion about this very thing. Most of the ideas were not mine, but I concur that they were good suggestions:
This is a list of twelve possible parties that could arise. Take your pick! SouthWriter 20:42, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the list South! :D The names seems to be very good, i will do the best for to choose the more appropriate. By the way, i corrected the name of the ATL wife of JFK Jr., Patricia. Regards! --Katholico 03:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Hi again South :) I have been working in list of US presidents and now i would want to ask for your opinion about some points please:
As in this time the vicepresidents are not replaced, so when Daniel Webster assume in 1853 he don't have VP, right?.
Buchanan's Vicepresident in 1852: William R. King like OTL he was VP of Pierce?
For the Buchahan's second term the vicepresident would be John C. Breckinridge like OTL.
The Breckinridge's running mate in OTL 1860 was Joseph Lane but i'm considering that maybe Lane died during the ATL America-Mexican, specifically in the Battle of Buena Vista, which here was an mexican victory (Zachary died in this battle by the way). If this is case, so i'm thinking that the VP could be Jefferson Davis.
What thinks? Thanks for your time!! Regards! :D --Katholico 06:14, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
Grant, Lee and beyond
Hi South (again xD), i'm thinking about the lifes of the Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee in my TL, as we talk before. I must say that I would not like to remove any of the two from the scene early. I want that both are alive until the civil war. For Grant, I think that he could participate during the Border Conflict to prevent another with Mexico (i read that in fact he was opposed to the war in 1846, something that could result very useful for my tl). For the other hand, Lee probably continue an life appeases during the 1860', until he join the Confederates like OTL. He die in 1870 OTL, but is possible that here live a couple of years more? For the duration of the war, i thinking that probably this last three years and ended in an stalemate (i'm thinking if is pausible an britain intervention during the war or an different war after maybe caused by a incident, but i need work more in this). Regards! --Katholico 05:55, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
I think that i understand the first things that you wrote, but the last thing not much jejeje ^_^U (my english again xD) Are you said that in case that Lee and Virginia remain loyal to the Union, he command the Union forces until his death in 1870 and is succeded by Grant, and war ended quickly? and if Lee join to the Confederacy and lead the southern forces until his death, Grant is elected president in 1872, and the war continues until that a ceasefire is signed and the CSA gain his independence? I read correctly, or maybe no?... Please can you explain me again it? jeje Regards and thanks! --Katholico 21:08, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
Yep, i understand now xD thanks very much! I have been thinking that i would like that, in my timeline, Lincoln has an "better" destiny (and perhaps, a new term in 1881?). How this could be possible? Maybe if the war ended after he end his presidential term? or all this is highly unlikely? Thanks again for all your help!! --Katholico 03:04, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Almost I forget the detail that, at this time, a US president could be reelected more of once. An Lincoln's third term sounds good for me. So, Grant would be the next president in 1877 and maybe reelected in 1881. Rutherford B. Hayes succeced him like OTL by a one term. And for next president, i'm reading the wikipedia articles and i think that could be James G. Blaine instead James A. Garfield... what thinks? --Katholico 04:18, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
OK; for the Lincoln's third term Seward probably wouldn't be the VP (given his health), so you think the Andrew Jonhson could gain the position?. Grant's Vicepresident would be Schuyler Colfax in both presidencies because Wilson died in 1875. For 1885, the Vicepresident of Rutherford B. Hayes should be William A. Wheeler like OTL, who serve until his death in 1887 (i'm trying to find another possible vicepresident in the OTL elections, but the majority died around 1885 and 1887 :/). Finally, in the case of Blaine in 1889 i think that is more complicated so i will read more for to find a good candidate. Regards! --Katholico 21:47, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Hello South! I have been reading for to find someone who might be Lincoln's Vicepresident during his third term. You previously suggested that the Republicans had tried to go with one solid ticket for the election. I bring the next names, what you think?
Henry B. Anthony
Hamilton Fish
Edwin M. Stanton
William P. Fessenden
Rutherford B. Hayes
Montgomery Blair
Benjamin Wade
There is someone that might be? Or maybe not? Thanks, Regards! :) --Katholico 05:46, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
About the above candidates for the 1872 VP slot:
Anthony and Fish are good candidates.
Hayes is probably the best choice.
Stanton and Fessenden die before 1872
Blair and Wade probably would not be a good fit, though Blair might work under the right circumstances.
Ups! I din't noticed the deaths of Stanton and Fessenden jeje ^^ Anyway, thanks South! Then, i will decide the VP between someone of 3, and i will put in the list. Regards! --Katholico 20:47, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
IP again
Hi! A IP user changes some words in the Abraham Lincoln article, you see it? --Katholico 20:05, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I rolled it back. The changes were minor, but the anonymous user changed the 'drama' I had put into the scene. Thanks for catching that, though. SouthWriter 20:13, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
No problem :) For the moment, this IP editions it does not seem to be a big problem, but if this continue maybe a solution could be the protection of the page. Regards! --Katholico 20:24, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Help with French Trafalgar, British Waterloo, please?
Hey SouthWriter, its been a while since we last talked, huh?
Anyway, now that I have a more stable internet connection and (some) free time, I've been doing my best to drive onwards with my main timeline, French Trafalgar, British Waterloo. However, I've hit a bit of a stumbling block in regards to North America, and would like to see if you could help me.
In FTBW, I have a unencumbered UK winning a resounding victory over the US in the War of 1812. In the peace treaty, almost half of the Louisiana Purchase is "bought" from the US by England to stop their Westward expansion. That was an earlier idea of mine when I first started it two years ago, and is, frankly, a weaker point in my TL. However, I believe I can use that in order to heighten tensions between the North and South US, as well as between the US and Britain. My idea was to that illegal American settlers would set up homesteads in the sparsely populated, and even less well-defended land. However, it would also mean that the Free-Slave state balance would be tipped once Texas is brought into the Union after an American-Mexican War, and California becomes an independent nation, the Pacific Republic. I believe this would create more equal sides in the resulted War of Confederate Independence in 1858, leading to the South eventually winning. I do have maps of what happens to the US here in order to help describe it easier. I'm just wondering if the story would make sense, or if other ideas would have to be considered.
I hope you get some time be able to help me, and I would be forever thankful for this. Tbguy1992 03:05, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I know its a bit more left wing than OTL, but that is kinda where I thought the world might be, like some times lines are more conservative and that. It just depends on how the world develops, I think, and had I written things differently from the get go, I might have made it more conservative, barring my beliefs. It just seemed that was the way that this TL was going from the beginning, frankly. I do try to be somewhat balanced, but it can be difficult if you don't have much time (like me, a university student with a full course load) to read both sides of every issue then try to balance it. So I just try to go with what will drive the story along, which I think is more important than ideology or beliefs, yes? Tbguy1992 01:35, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
Well, a writer writes what is in his heart to get a message out. If it is a good story it will carry that message into the hearts of the readers. That is, I think, the work of a poet, or a propogandist ;-)
At best, a work of fiction should move the reader to think, to change his mind in some little way. If your story is balanced by research into other ideologies, it may even change you! The point is, fiction is not good fiction unless it makes the reader to think. A precautionary tale, perhaps, takes things to a logical conclusion which will make one think twice before going to the point to which the tale leads. It is so with alternate history - for better or for worse. You make your home town the best of all possible worlds in this ALT. Yours remains a world like the one you know while all those worlds with which you are 'at odds,' so to speak, move in directions that make them worse. What have you learned in the excercise?
I am not scolding, but only offering a little wisdom that real life has lent me in the forty years since I was your age. Things did not go as I dreamed they would - far from it, really. I am wiser, but not any better off in this world's eyes. I am stronger in my faith, I hope, than when I started my journey into adulthood. I have learned what is important. I have walked in the steps of One much greater than I - the One who suffered for me so that I might live a life much greater than what I could ever imagine. That one of which I speak is Jesus Christ. He is the one who is control of history, and everything that has happened has happened for a purpose. May your study of history help you to understand the purpose for which you walk this earth, Tb. SouthWriter 02:37, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
<Reminds South about "No Cross, No Crown"> Lordganon 08:11, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
This is my talk page, not the talk page of an article, and I am not demanding anything of the reader, Tb in particular. This is my testimony and I am fully aware of "NCNC." Look at the whole post, LG. I am closing out the discussion with 'words of wisdom' to a writer who has stated that ideology does not matter in writing a piece of fiction. I happen to disagree. Literature, even written history, is not neutral. The writing of the most unbiased historian is still covered by his choice of what to record. I do not ask, and certainly don't demand, that anything be changed in the time line in question. I only offer advice, in my own personal page in this wiki. Thank you, though, for the reminder. SouthWriter 13:05, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
Patricia Janiot (Kennedy)
Well, first i must say... poor Miguel Yenos XD But well, this is funny of the alternate history :P About Patricia, I only knew her for the news of CNN en Español, but now after read his biography she seem to be good option for Kennedy., besides that she is latin american, which give to JFK Jr. an important bond with the continent in this new world post-Doomsday. Regards! --Katholico 04:19, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I would like your input if you have the time.
South, when you have the time can you come over to the main Doomsday discussion page and give your thoughts regarding a subject. I recently posted some major concerns I have regarding how we have been looking at communications in the post-war world in the fundamental issue section. As both a long time contributor and the author of the EMP article, I would love to have your input. LG I fear is not willing to listen and I don't believe my thoughts are as implausible as he makes them out to be. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 01:02, October 13, 2011 (UTC)
Kunarian
Week is standard for the kind of block.
Actually, it was extended to a month because, besides the complaints - which you'll note, I did nothing to halt, overall, and even made a post on the TSPTF page myself about - he continued to post as his nations on the map games as an anon. A very obvious and blatant attempt at ignoring the block, and defeating its purpose. A complaint - or even many, as he did - is one thing - though, still having the IPs banned as per protocol - but attempting to continue to post anonymously to circumvent is another thing entirely, and definitely against the rules. Not spite, in the least.
And, for the record, if you didn't notice, Oer supports my decision.
That's what I was missing. I looked on your talk page for complaints and/or discussion of this manner, and found none. The banter in the talk pages of the map games themselves didn't have any indication of a problem. I do not check the TSPTF page though I guess I should add that to my 'follow' list. I am not on as often as I used to be, so I miss anything that doesn't come through my email notices. I was asking because I could not figure out what was going on. It would seem that you have things under control. I don't follow the map games anyway. I am sorry if I misjudged you. Have a good day. SouthWriter 01:55, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
Ive been thinking ill think I go through your proposed site for the collectivist city state, just thought I should thank you for the idea Alexanders 01:00, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Alex, write up a proposal for the commune to reclaim Jekyll Island after it was abandoned. It is going to have to take quite a bit of research to make it plausible, but it should be interesting. SouthWriter 20:40, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
The Henderson Family
Earlier, on Alex's talk page, I posted a concern about the insertion of a line on the 1983DD North Carolina page under "Famous Persons" about Seth Henderson, proposed first president of the Outer Banks. I looked Henderson up, and noted the relationship with user Alexanders, AKA "Tommy" who had also made a recent addition of a new 'honorary citizen' using a fictional character in place of himself (who would not have been born). I first pointed out that 'fictional' characters are not suitable to that page and then welcomed a scenario that might place Mr. Henderson in place as president of a founder of the new island republic. SouthWriter
My grandfarther was invited by Dare County to be Superentdient once in the 60's and again in the later 70's, he was a very popular man all through his life in Dare County. He was a Tour Guide at the national park service in the late 80's and early 90's.
My real mother is vaporized in this timeline and my dad marries someone that was raised in Dare County.
As I pointed out on your talk page, Alex, I will be glad to consider incorporating your grandfather into the history of the Outer Banks. However, as a retired school superintendant he will need some sway with county council from 1983 to 1987 to become president in 1988.
As for the Mrs. Henderson of our time line - your mom - it is probably not technically true that she was 'vaporized' even if she was in a city that recieved a direct hit. Most bombs were air bursts, doing their damage with shock waves and fireballs. Such attacks would likely be over down town, meaning some level of survivablity in residential areas, especially on a Sunday evening. I know the rule of thumb is 'when in doubt, nuke it,' but we would need to know the city exactly as to whether your mother had a chance, was killed outright, or something horribly in between.
However, if your father must marry a local woman, and a 'half-you' is the result, it is certainly an option to insert the character in the story line of the Outer Banks. You would have your own experiences to draw upon and you could even give the character your own name if you wanted (though I'm guessing your mother named you).
While on the subject of the honorary citizen page, the inclusion of both your grandfather and your father would be proper. Another editor included his father who had two children by a different wife because of the changes in the time line. SouthWriter 20:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Wow. You really messed me up, man! What I mean is, answering me on this page immediately like you did made my attempt to post the original fail. I copied my new post, reloaded and all came out alright. This is why I like to follow posts 'in line' - to assure continuity of thought. I have begun to do it the other way, since most editors seem to prefer it, but it is a bit of a headache.SouthWriter 21:00, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Request for Assistance as Moderator
South, I would like to request your assistance as a moderator with a problem as time and convenience allows. A serious disagreement has erupted between me and LG, to the point it has gotten nasty. Given you are an outsider with no stake in the discussion, albeit a neutral view point, I am asking if you would review our discussions and give us your thoughts. I have no intentions of posting anything further regarding the subject than what I have unless asked. I will adhere to your judgment. I will also be asking Brian if he will as a moderate as well. There is no rush. Our discussion may be found under the Nimitz section on the main discussion page. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your thoughts.--Fxgentleman 12:37, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
For the record, South, he is the one that went nasty. Not myself. Nor is there any "serious disagreement," in the end. Lordganon 14:50, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed not only this exchange but also all of the articles that LG has introduced (the task that took most of my day!) and I am posting my response in the string of the Nimitz discussion. I hope my response there reflects today's labors coherently, since I will attempt a short answer to this problem. I must say, though, that far from an 'outsider,' I will attempt to be neutral. SouthWriter 04:10, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
South, I had the opportunity this evening to review your analysis. I would like to thank you for the hard work and consideration you put into it. I apologize for having involved you into this situation, however I felt it had reached a stage that it required a mediator and I appreciate your willingness to put aside your time to do so. You essentially addressed the crux of my concerns and issues in the matter. I am satisfied with your decision and will adhere to it and consider the matter closed.
On a separate note, I appreciate your remarks regarding my articles. This is the first time I am aware of, since I don't follow such matters, that someone has read everything I have written. We normally don't get much feedback on our articles so it was nice to receive it. As much as I appreciate the compliment I think there are a lot of good articles that have been written in the scenario. You indicated you had some questions regarding my Middle East articles. As your time allows please feel free to contact me on my discussion page and I will do my best to answer them. Thanks again for your time.--Fxgentleman 00:14, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Hi South, I just wanted to follow-up on one thing. The backstory I alluded to about the Nimitz came from this link http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/ANZS_Commonwealth_(1983:_Doomsday). It turned up during a search I did while doing my research, but I did have problems locating it later. I don't believe it is defunct, however please feel free to correct if it indeed is. Hope this helps. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 04:38, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Hey South, since I seee you are still online can you take a look at the question I posted on my talk page earlier and also let me know your thoughts as well regarding the peice I posted on the Nimitz discussion yesterday. There is no rush. Thanks much and goodnight.--Fxgentleman 05:04, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Another request for assistance
Could you help, Lordganon has decided that my IC actions are somehow extremely personal and rude (my suspicions are because he is biased in favour of Yank, though he will deny everything, he has done it before) despite that it is simply in character he has decided I have to cut out my "behaviour" when I explained why I was Roleplaying in such a way and questioned him about what I was doing wrong and how it was worse than Yanks actually personal attacks against me, he simply repeated his response saying that, again, I needed to cut out my "attitude". Lordganon has something against me no doubt after our last encounter. This time rather than him having free reign to do as he pleases and block me should I disagree further with the way he is dealing with a roleplay situation (which shouldn't need dealing with anyway), I would prefer if you could look it over and tell me what I have done wrong (if anything) and maybe tell Lordganon to stop trying to lay into me just because we have disagreed in the past. Kunarian 19:23, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Kunarian, but I don't think I can help there. I am totally unfamiliar with map games and the role playing that goes on there. From the Principia Moderni talk page, it appears that you stepped back in to a situation that had changed in your absence. I would suggest that you step back and evaluate the game for what it has become in the month you were away. Don't get personal against other players and listen to LG, for he is much more familiar with how those games are run than I am. SouthWriter 02:39, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Funny how he thinks I would ever be biased in favor of Yank, lol. He's been, quite frankly, an ass in his "roleplaying," and it needs to stop. Nor has Yank done much of anything about it, either, which we both know is an effort. Basically, he's got an attitude in there for some reason, and I told him to drop it. Lordganon 09:00, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Lordganon has once again told me to stop this imaginary "attitude". This is no longer a situation of roleplaying but of clear bias. It doesn't matter if you think Venice is an "ass" or the fact that you seem to not want to adress Yanks consistant insults of other players. It matters that when it comes to the game no matter how much I keep my words inside the lines of good talk, you have a go at me, I didn't see this happen when me and the russian player where having problems in north america but when Yanks involved so it seems are you. As I have said before tell me what this "attitude" is and I can stop it but so far it just seems to be you having a problem with me. Kunarian 14:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
It's not imaginary. He, while dropping the "roleplaying" and assorted claims, has not dropped the attitude. And again, he's claiming a bias, which is still pretty amusing, given that it's Yank, someone who I freely admit annoys me, he's claiming I'm biased towards. As for the Russia thing, he does get a couple chances before I warn him, though I admit I should have warned Kun about that one, too. Lordganon 15:11, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Then why not ask him to check his attitude? is it that I'm on your watchlist or something? anyways I have stopped arguing so if anyone continues it will not be me. Kunarian 16:02, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Yank has been civil. Simple. Lordganon 16:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree but in favour of being able to edit, I have made a request on Principia Moderni. Kunarian 16:28, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Fx, the Nimitz, and Hawaii
Note that at this time I have not read the post from today. And that I've been too busy to reply previously. So, if any of this is contradicted by that you'll have to beg my pardon.
I'd suggest you read it again, but at this point, you're not able to think neutrally about me in any form, so I know full well there's no point. Based on that, quite frankly, you probably should not have even tried to mediate and let Brian do it. But, too late now. Have to say, mind, that the post on my page was nicer than I expected, so kudos there.
He did not indicate that he did not understand. He dismissed it, outright. I'm aware that it was probably not intentional, but he did it. And then ignored it when I called him on it.
I've no problem at all. Fx out and out said things, however intentional, that were insulting. And they were pretty obviously so. There's no problem with "interpreting people" here, except that FX failed to interpret an obvious point for several days. The reasons with "confrontations" are unique to every case. In this one, Fx and myself both got annoyed - immensely so - when we both were perceived as missing obvious points. I got his - after he actually made it, and you can obviously see where that was - but he failed to get mine, and got set off when I made it clear that I was getting exasperated.
He found the article on the former Nimitz, which as you noticed, despite having the word "Nimitz" on the page, doesn't show up in the search for some reason. His line about the NATO ships was wrong, and there was no harm - or so I thought - in pointing it out.
NATO ships would actually have been in the region. Not only are there French and British bases in the Indian, South Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans, but in all navies it is a fairly common practice to have warships out on goodwill voyages, especially for their maiden voyages. There will be some in the area. Not too many, but some. A good example of this is the voyage of the Vinson that was happening at that time. And, given the area where the Vinson would have originated - the East/South China Seas - it is likely that one or two of them would have joined it. Nor was it out of context, at all, for that line was referring to the Vinson, thus making it in context.
As stated to you more than once by this time, nothing was discounted, or even called not plausible. As I have explained, now for the third time, the Hawaii stuff is not necessary. And, for the record, those islands are in harms way.
The lines you bold, no matter the ending, insinuate that he is calling me an idiot. There is no doubt of this. And I'm sorry that you fail to see that. Don't care how he meant it, but that is what it is.
Unintentional does not equal no malice. Not in the least. Everyone says things that they do not mean to say that are still hateful and untrue - and a shrink would confirm that. That is slander. And thus, insult. False perceptions are more of the same. And, with the last part he is implying that I do not have one, and looking at the rest of the post makes that pretty obvious.
His posts and actions have shown to me that he was acting with malice. I figure that for the most part, it was unintentional. However, it was still there, and it was insulting on a few levels. The surface, as you so put it, is not as it seems, not at all.
If you will pardon me, I am going to refer to the above below. It is a little easier for me and it allows the remarks to be viewed in context. And so, here is my 'prepared' statement. I have attempted to answer the pertinent concerns I have based only on what you have written and not on any bias on my part to you as a person. As you point out, our past encounters make that impossible, but here goes:
You write: "Unintentional does not equal no malice. Not in the least. Everyone says things that they do not mean to say that are still hateful and untrue - and a shrink would confirm that. That is slander. And thus, insult. False perceptions are more of the same. And, with the last part he is implying that I do not have one, and looking at the rest of the post makes that pretty obvious."
First, here is the definition, both common usage and as a legal term (this time from a modern source):
mal·ice /ˈmælɪs/ noun 1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy. 2. Law . evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.
As much as you may have been hurt by perceived slights, if they were unintentional on the other party's part, then there is no malice. You cannot re-define your terms to suit your argument, for to do so destroys credibility. If someone continues to present the same opinion of you once he knows that it hurts you, then you have a case. Unintentional "malice" is impossible. Note that the insult need not be a lie; the malice is in the desire, and thus intent, to do harm.
You are right, sometimes people say things the don't mean to say. But it is practically impossible to say things one does not mean. Words mean things, and the intents of the heart will come out in what we say in unguarded moments. We speak before we think, actually, and thus say things we would not say after due consideration. However, the media in which we are communicating does not work quite that way. When someone writes a response it rarely is in the emotions of the moment. Even Fx's "offensive" paragraph was, as I pointed out, was in carefully constructed language. It is hard to 'unintentionally' construct such a paragraph.
Though something may be unintensionally untrue, the fact that it is untrue does not show hatefulness in the speaking of that erroroneous statement. How can it? And if there is no intent then the fact that one is mistaken is to be dealt with appropriately. And that should not be by taking offense.
I do not know how much psychology you have had in school. I assume that you had enough to be able to discern bias in the writers of history in order to better interpret the facts gleamed from said historians. However, as contemporary authors have done to 'textual criticism' of their works (where the critic trys to explain what he 'meant' when he wrote a passage), so a debate opponent can do to your arguments. You have absolutely no way to "know" what I mean when I place words on paper beyond the surface of the text.
A good writer will place qualifiers in a sentence to indicate doubt or opinion, and these are what you seem to be missing. These are the "IF's" and "Maybe's" and such scattered in such discussion. I am quite certain that you will never change your ways until you are forced by some action which I cannot, and do not wish to, carry out. It seems to me that no matter of words can convince you to consider that your perceptions may possibly be wrong in each of these situations in which you strike out at others.
Having said that, I will point out in closing that you seem to have missed my point in regards to "NATO" ships. The ships of member nations do not belong to NATO. The organization has no jurisdiction even in the Persian Gulf but went there by agreement with allies in the area (not member nations). Any ships in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are there representing their nations in some other relationship. Even on the good will trips, such as that of the Vinson, are on behalf of the nation whose flag the ship flies, and that has not been a NATO flag in any case that I have seen. NATO members are free to associate with other nations just as we as individuals are not kept from associating with other people outside of whatever organization(s) we may be a member.
I hope I included enough qualifiers above to indicate that I am not attempting to think for you in any way. It seems to me that you will hold tenaciously to your point of view, so as Fx pointed out earlier, there is no use to attempt to change that. When you write that you "don't care how he meant it, that is what it is" you show that this is so. I look forward to your response to the other post I made to you, but really, there is no need to respond to this one, for we have both made our points. SouthWriter 22:55, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Another lecture with no base to it, eh? How shocking.
It's called "subconsciously." As in, without noticing or actively doing, but doing it all the same. It is very possible to do malice unintentionally.
No, I got your point on the NATO ships. You, however, missed something: In the absence of national authorities, NATO forces are supposed to, and would, delegate themselves to the whomever is the senior commander of whatever allied units may be present in the area. And the orders they would have gotten between the launches and the EMP would have told them as such.
I'm amazed that you seem to think that qualifiers remove the nature of the post, but I guess I shouldn't be shocked since you think that adding "with all due respect" to something insulting erases that fact.
I admit, the word "whole" was an exaggeration. But, that does not change the fact that between his "apology" and his "offer" that it was condescending. You failed to notice what I was referring to.
And, quite obviously, I was aware of it days ago. And if he'd have bothered to pay attention he'd have noticed.
Sickness? You stuff words into my mouth like that at least every month, without reason. Damn right I'm sick of it. Sick and tired.
Displeased does not equal fear. Even you should know that. Annoyed would be the most accurate term to describe the whole matter.
As I said on the DD page...
His "offer" was not condescending. Though, thanks for putting words into my mouth again. What was condescending was the rest of it.
I never said that the offer was. Thus, you shoved words down my throat.
A "gentleman" as you so put it would not have been condescending or insulting as Fx was.
I have been showing restraint. For days, I have. But you never can acknowledge that, can you? Go figure. And, belligerence? What else do you expect when someone constantly, without grounds, lectures you, and someone else gets set off on you when they missed a point for days? Sheesh.
I do not have problems with differing opinions. What I do have a problem with, however, is when people spend days missing an obvious point, and then lash out about it. "May" or "Seem" has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I guess I do have a problem with what others "are saying" when they write. As in when they are condescending, or insulting. Even more so when they, when called on it, fail to notice that they had been so. Fx has failed multiple times to do so, or to even be apologetic about. I at least will do both. But, again, you never give any acknowledgement of that, either.
It's Good to hear from you South. Thanks for the compliment. That was one of those articles I had a lot of ideas that just never got around to getting written down. As for the next week off, I have a Monday and Friday off so I'm basically hopping from one weekend to the the other, I guess, lol. I'll be doing a lot of work over the holidays so I'll hopefully "clean up the huge mess" I made when I left, fleshing out articles, and putting the ones I can't handle up for adoption, I think you get the picture.
Anyways, I've hopped on a few times here and there and I did take notice of what you've done with the USAR and a couple of my other articles. All I can say is you did a great job on the USAR, that was a pretty unique and controversial project that unfortunately would have been one of the many, many "stubs" I left behind here if it wasn't for you. I definitely think that statehood is unlikely until the mainland gains some sort of sea access, but frequent contact and some sort of on-paper relatonship whatsoever is a definite yes. I was brainstorming of what to do with California, which is definitely a state I'd like to reenter the Union as I was discussing with LG earlier. Since the United States seems to be under your wing, I was wondering how we'd go about with this. I also think that Florida is a possibility, I do think that it would definitely be influenced by the USAR more than the USA itself, though.
I really want to work on a project if you've got any ideas on the whole Americanosphere or anything in general I'm here. It's good to be back :) Arstar 05:48, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
PS: Do you want to communicate on your talk page or mine? I like keeping the conversation in one place
I'm with you on keeping the conversations in one place. I am going to have to put things in motion with the Dakotas (a project between Zack and me) which probably should have been added as a state long ago. Zack also feels that Kentucky definitely should be on track to become part of the USA. I am not sure where all the resistance to distance and lack of shoreline have much to do with rejoining the Union. Alaska and Hawaii were territories far separated from the US when they were acquired. Even as states they are remote - each in their own way. But that does seem to be the consensus. Right now, rejoining the US will be like joining the League of Nations. Exchange of officials, radio contact, that sort of thing. The present USA is not into centralized government as such, but in unity among Americans. Any states that want to remain the way they are will do so.
Hey, I started to go to bed an hour ago. I'll check back with you later. SouthWriter 07:21, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
The Dakotas are definitely something that need to be updated as already having happened. They've been a pretty underutilized project since the beginning, I mean we had two surviving state capitals that Zack just left there. You remember what we did with the Saguenay War rewrite? Do you think we could do a similar thing with the US/USAR/Surrounding States? I've always been a "loyalist" you could say to the ATL US, and statehood is something I want all my countries to achieve except for Niagara Falls and maybe Superior.
Also, I'm running it by you but I did a minorly rewrite/reorganize on certain parts of the USAR page, nothing big, but theres two seperate entries condtradicting themselves about when Navassa Island was settled and why. I think the native goats becoming extinct and the seagulls part should go the other way around, as goats are much, much more convenient than cattle on a small island like that and would likely be domesticated. I remember reading something about how London in OTL is getting rid of their pidgeon problem by making large nest-cages and replacing the eggs with decoys which has caused a large decreasAnyways e in their population. I think the same thing would be done with Navassa, but, then again, maybe they'll farm Pidgeon's too (just kidding). Arstar 18:27, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
I see you took the mention of New Lulu Town out, though you left it in the info box. What's with that? I remember working on the concept for quite some time and now the one line we agreed upon is taken out. I thought it was a stretch to start with, but after adding a desalinaton plant the town and island might become independent enough that Jamaica doesn't have to support them. And I wrote out the goats because they were king on the island because they eat the desert grass and other sparse vegetation. I figured that with the USAR reclaiming the island the goats would lose out. It was a throw away line and I'm sure that the goats could be demesticated just fine. With the building of the town, I figured the sustenance living would be a thing of the past. The military town there would probably import most of its food (and until the desalination plant, the water) from Jamaica. The guano would serve as their 'currency.' And without the birds, the guano would not be replenished. SouthWriter 04:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
The metion of New Lulu Town? That was because I could've sworn It was written in there twice. It looks like I should've gone to bed earlier that day that's not the only thing I messed up. Anyways, I think that the goats would actually be not only viable for survival but possibly exported to the main islands because they are a convenient source of inexpesive livestock compared to cows which would be difficult to maintain on the overpopulated islands. Anyways, I can't believe I overlooked the pidgeon-guano connection. Like I said I was sleep-deprived over the course of the entire weekend so I must have not been thinking well. But I guess the pidgeons would definitely remain, and the goats might be demoted to the animals that the lower-class farmers use to make inexpensive milks/cheese/butters etc. Arstar 01:24, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Can I Get Your Thoughts
Hi South, when you get a chance I would appreciate your input regarding a discussion we are having dealing with Iceland on the main discussion page. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 04:17, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Presidents of US (CNS)
Hi South, how are you? :) I hope fine. I would like to know your opinion about the US presidents in my timeline Chile No Socialista in the spanish wikia. As the timeline is principally focused in Chile and South America, the situation in the rest of the world seems to be the same like OTL... at least for the moment. I have been tried to find some plausible changes in the case of US presidents (even recently i have seen the assesination attempts just for give me an idea). By now, the options are put the same presidents like OTL, or maybe Ronald Reagan in 1977 (another previous idea was Kennedy in 1981 but i'm unsure about). As said before, the POD seems to be affect only to this part of the continent and the only important event that could affect other sides is the South Amrican War in 1978. Can you help with any opinion? Thanks and Regards! --Katholico 04:28, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am doing well, thank you. I don't think a change in government in Chile would make much of a difference in America unless the US government got pulled into an upopular war down there, shifting the politics in America. So, if you can work a Viet Nam type of war in the mountains of Chile that would strenghten Carter enough to beat Reagan, then I'd say go for it. Or, if the war can begin while Ford is president, he might even beat Carter. This might have interesting results in the world in and of itself. It is possible that Carter's handling of the war would mean Edward Kennedy could get the nomination in 1976, but Kennedy would have less of a chance against Reagan than would Carter. Without the war in Chile involving the US before 1976, there would be no way to change the loss to Ford in the primaries that year. Feliz Navidad! SouthWriter 04:55, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) Well, the only event like Vietnam might be the Revolution of 1977, when finally the armed far-left groups attempt to reach the power by force, with support from the URSS and Cuba, but they fail absolutely. But this take place between March and April that year.
Before that, however, i had thought about the possibility of a war only between Chile and Peru (ruled by the socialist military Juan Velasco Alvarado) about 1974-1975, maybe begun by Peru with excuse of a guerrilla incident. In this case...
if Ford support firmly to Chile, he would get the reelection?
or if he does not do it, or if is doubtful, maybe Reagan won the nomination and won the election is 1976? Just ideas that i thought now. Regards! --Katholico 05:39, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
I just read up on Ford and in the time frame to which you refer the US was in the process of handling the withdrawal from Viet Nam - including 'shows of force' as North Viet Nam continued its aggression. It is possible, then that a refusal to commit to supporting Chile may have been enough to sway voters to go for Reagan over Ford. With an earlier Reagan, world history may have changed dramatically. I'd say the presidents would be:
Ronald Reagan - 1977-1985
Jimmy Carter - 1985-1989
Bob Dole - 1989-1993
Bill Clinton - 1993-2001
John McCain - 2001-2009
Mike Huckabee - 2009-
By taking George H.W. Bush out of the line-up, George W. Bush doesn't enter the picture. This puts Bob Dole up against a weak Jimmy Carter. John McCain replaces George W. Bush and leaves a legacy that makes Huckabee strong in 2008. I admit I was a Huckabee supporter, but with McCain our of the picture, it would be Huckabee in 2008! Sorry, a little bit of politicking going on. Of course, I have just presented a time line that is possible even without your scenario! Thanks, I'll use this line-up to create a time-line of my own.
Well, I've got to get some sleep. Buenos Noches. SouthWriter 07:11, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
No problem South, i'm glad that this idea could be useful for you :D
Really thanks you, the list seems to me very well :) Maybe the only thing is about the possibility to see to Ted Kennedy at some point as President, but just was an idea. Still, i need to advance more into the time line for analyze the effects that all this could cause in Middle East, Asia, Central America and Europe (Iran hostage, gulf war, cuba, afganistan etc)... Regards! --Katholico 19:34, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you want Ted Kennedy, I suppose he would fit where Jimmy Carter is, since it was against Carter that he first attempted to get the nomination. Perhaps with Reagan winning the first time against Carter, Kennedy would fare better against Carter the second time, and thus beats George H.W. Bush in 1984. It is just as possible that George Bush would win in 1984 as he did in our time line in 1988, but for some reason, I liked Carter over Bush in my alternate list of presidents. Bob Dole was the best I could come up with for 1988, really, and figured the minority leader could beat Carter anyway. Of the list, the only primary choices I voted for are Reagan and Huckabee. That means I don't particularly like McClain or Dole, but I voted for them in the general election.
Without the Iran hostage crisis against him, in fact, Carter may have succeeded in the 1980's. I am not so sure Kennedy would have won a second term in the 1980's though. If you have him in the queue, then it's Reagan-Kennedy-Clinton-McCain-Huckabee. Yes, I believe Huckabee could have beaten B.H. Obama OR Hilary Clinton- but that's just me. :-)
Until next time, Adios. SouthWriter 20:52, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Best Copy-editor nomination
Last year, it primarily - or so I've gathered, anyways - meant ensuring categories were attached, and that spelling/grammar were fixed where possible. I also do more things with formatting problems than with sp/gramm, too. Also have to fix the spelling of a lot of categories too, lol.
Most of the time, if I notice something while adding these things, I'll fix them.
Off hand, I've fixed some things for Owner and Imp this year, I think. Some of Arstar's articles, and a few long-standing DD proposals, too. Definitely the India articles in DD, and the main/news pages, along with likely a few more DD articles. Heck, I think I've done a bit of BSE and Ven's works, too, but don't quote me on it. Past that, no clue off the top of my head.
Really, South, I can honestly say that I've done some. Problem is, I really can't say where, lol. The lists of edits I've done this year are just too big to go through, as you said. Went back a couple of months before I quit, and that took like 15 pages of 500 edits each, lol
Past that....
I like to think that I am pretty decent, maybe good, at going over things for errors. After a certain point with writing papers, you get pretty used to doing it for your own and for other people's, lol.
If you ever need/want something like that done, all you have to do is ask. Be far from the only person that I'm told that to, lol. As you say, a second pair of eyes can work wonders. We all make odd turns of phrase that only someone else can notice, you know?
Hi I would like to talk to you about your recent edit on A Different Floyd, I would like to tell you your categorization of the articles are incorrect, This alternate history is not just about Pink Floyd, but about Music in general. Vidboy10 02:29, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
If you wanted to 'talk' then you should have waited for me to respond. What you have here is a monlogue. It was your article, and you corrected my mistake. I put in the remark that I was attempting to remove the page from being an "orphan" by providing lengths to its related articles. The most recent cache of orphan pages does not include A Different Floyd, so the links you had in it must have been added after it was cached. I was merely doing my duty trying to help an orphan out.
If the articles about other bands are in no way associated with Pink Floyd, then how can they be said to be affected by the point of divergence. If they are associated in some way, then you need to show this in the articles. I would suggest that you build on the premise of the band being indeed different with Waters in control rather than being at odds with it for decades while working solo as he did. Otherwise, find a point of divergence that might change the outlook of many different bands. A time line with multiple points of divergence is hard to keep coherent.
Again, I am sorry to disturb your article with an inaccurate labeling of the links. I should have read the linked articles to find some connection to the original gateway article instead of assuming they were 'albums.' It was an honest mistake. SouthWriter 06:29, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Cuban colony
I like it, there should be more articles regarding the subject, seeing as how the Cubans have a whopping number of camps in the U.S. ( 67, although I'm not even sure any more who wrote that into Mitro's original article, if it was me or someone else). That said, I'm not even sure if there should be one specific article regarding all these camps or just a couple of them regarding the bigger ones, like what you have outlined.
Regarding the pictures, I kind of like the second one better. Is nominating pictures for the Awards an either/or matter or can one user nominate two pictures?Vladivostok 08:58, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I hope you had a Merry Christmas as well of course.--Vladivostok 09:01, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
That number of "camps" seems excessive, but given that there were a lot of Navy bases along the coast, I guess we can live with it. I suppose many of the camps could be temporary and disappear after the expeditions are complete.
I think nominating one is the proper proceedure. By the "second one" I assume you mean the bombed out Savannah (second one on the page). I actually made that one first. Puerto de Savannah was easier, but I think it was a bit more realistic. But go with the one you like best. However, don't do it because I asked you to. If you want to nominate some older pictures someone else did, or vote for the one I have posted as the one 'best' that I was allowed from my own portfolio, feel free. I just knew that having created them in my free time, in the course of this discussion, these would have a very short time for eligibility and would not be seen by many people before being posted on the wiki. SouthWriter 18:26, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Of course I know I don't have to nominate the bombed out Savannah image, but I do like it so I will.
And as far as I'm concerned, you should definitely make the Savannah article a proposal, unless you you're waiting for Brian of course.--Vladivostok 09:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Re:International Dateline
I like the idea of them trying to incorporate their acquisitions in Alaska even more by making the DMZ the new international date line, it ads a bit more character to the country. By all means, feel free to write about it on the news feed.--Vladivostok 11:43, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
I understand you are good with maps...
The "experts" page has you under map making and I am wondering what software you recommend? I have had little luck with GIMP but I have seen some masterful maps made with it.Willbell123 01:24, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
I use good MS Paint. I have GIMP, but haven't learned to use it yet. What I start out with is a blank black and white US map (or other nation if its available) with only boundaries of political units added. US county maps are good for filling in spaces with color. If you want less definition, go with less outlined. I did a lot of work on 1983DD maps in the US this way. I haven't worked much on anything else in the way of maps. SouthWriter 04:16, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
United States and Surrounding Nations
Hey South do you remember a month back the conversation we had on the expansion of the new United States? I was wondering if you are still interested in doing that project as I have an idea for a rough outline of events for that idea. Let me know. Arstar 20:47, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I like the enthusiasm! And for future reference I try to keep things "in line" but since you don't get a message when you reply to someone's comment on your own talkpage I sometimes go back and forth but for future reference, keep it in line preferably, no big deal if not.
Anyways I've been reading up on one of the authors named God Bless The United States of America, a.k.a. "GB" who sprouted up while I was gone. Obviously you know him as I've seen from archived conversations, but while he seemed enthusiastic on reunifying the United States the whole "American Spring" movement never really accomplished anything. While I don't have a whole lot of time to write something as I might go out with some friends in a few minutes I'll give you the basics I have in mind:
After the Saguenay War several of the American survivor states feel a sense of pride after showing they still have the ability to fight together. I'm thinking we should execute this like the Saguenay re-write was where we write these events into the immediate past and still unfolding in the present. Here is a rough outline I have:
Following contact with the Atlantic Remnant the mainland is inspired that in the most obscure American territory a semblance of legitimacy has yet to be claimed by Doomsday. This bolsters the American spirit even further.
Continued friction with the Republic of Lincoln causes both the State of Kansas and Lincoln's rivalry to increase further, building up so much pride on each side that the only other place you could see such pride is with opposing teams at a pre-War college football game.
The "adrenaline boost" in the Midwest causes some Dakotanites to ally with the Americans. Soon afterwords, the Dakotas apply for statehood. I haven't thought of the chain of events that lead to this, but I don't see why they didn't join earlier.
Cascadia is another potential state, as "loyalists" from within the country argue that a reunification would help both the US and Cascadia.
Further reclamation occurs in Colorado. This is somewhat unrelated to the protests and not necessary but since the state wasnt too heavily damaged I don't see why not.
A counter movement occurs with Lincoln. After setting up very small puppet states in Nebraska small towns it convinces the Quad Cities Alliance to not join the USA. This begins a scramble for the Missisippi River border-states.
The movement spreads eastward. A couple months after the Dakota annexation the USA sets up the Minnesota territory which is met by much flack from Superior. Republic of Wisconsin also begins expanding but does not join anyone.
The Oaklahoma city-states form the Oaklahoma Coalition (tentative name).
A duplicate movement occurs in Canada to a lesser extent mostly among the United Communities Canadian states.
Another duplicate movement forms in the South, where it is up to you to see whether the CSA is reformed, or the USA is.
The CRUSA and some of the more "Tea Party"-like members of the ATL petition to Victoria to handover the American possessions they have.
Oregon Free State is split on what to do. Due to its more Democratic nature it may decline but towards the eastern parts bordering with the NAU there may be more support.
This is part one of the "American Spring" and at the Petition for Washington directly above, this is where it should "spill" into the present day, January 2012.
What are your thoughts? Obviously we will need the approval of a lot of other people but most of these nations are just sitting here. This project could jumpstart the community if it generates enough buzz I think :-) Arstar 00:48, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you prefer 'in line' discussion. Scrolling up, or "cut and paste" for context just seems like too much work for me. It seems that I have also put myself in a pinch and will be leaving in a few minute (heading to church), so here are just a few remarks regarding the above.
I'm thinking that Dakotan statehood is probably completed (ratified in November) and needs to be written into the mix.
I think you mean the state of Nebraska, with Lincoln establishing states in Iowa (Kansas and Missouri too!).
I am in total agreement about the euphoria that might arise finding out that some Americans did not simply give up on the USA after Doomsday. The USAR can certainly be an inspiration.
Well, I've got to go. I'll return with more thoughts either later tonight or sometimes tomorrow. SouthWriter 22:44, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Alright so far so good. The only question I have is will the Dakota's be split into to, or remain the same, and how about the "Minnesota Territory" idea? Arstar 04:09, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Given their loss of territory to the Lakota and Assiniboia, I'd say the Dakotas will stay together. I figure they might as well keep the name Dakota, though they may consider going by "the Dakotas" as a testimony to the past. I don't see the USA or the Dakotas seeking to annex "unclaimed" territory. The way I see it, the USA will seek the closest thing to actual successor states and work with them. Only after they have negotiated with the nation-states that decline the offer to join will unclaimed territory be "up for grabs."
I have prepared a map showing what I think the present boundaries of Lincoln are, assuming control of
The present state of affairs
new 'states' across its borders into Iowa, Missouri and Kansas. The republic effectively controls the traffic up and down the Missouri River but has no say what happens on the Mississippi north of the junction in what is Kentucky territory. These "puppet states," as you call them, would pose a problem to the CRUSA, and perhaps to the USA as well, because they constitute expansion across old state lines. However, if the states are considered independent by law then they become negotiable. Dakota is still colored separately, but should be considered part of the USA in this map.
I hope this helps in determining the nature of the borders of Lincoln. I would prefer that Lincoln be in the southern portion of the state south of the Platte River, but that cuts Nebraska off from Kansas. The map also does not show reclaimed Colorado west of Kansas. I agree that Colorado east of the blast zones in the center of the state ought to have been settled by now. If we grant sufficient settlement of eastern Colorado, then Kansas would not be cut off and Lincoln could be granted the land south of the river while relinquishing a few more counties in the north. SouthWriter 22:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Very well. Why don't we use one of the tributaries of the Platte so the state is roughly divided in half but at a more geographically likely way?
Anyways here's up a map for Colorado which will show what I think the boundaries should be. While I am trying to avoid them having any control near Denver this is what I've come up with so far.
Approximate boundaries of Colorado
. So should we go ahead with writing the Dakota annexation? That's the stepping stone for the whole idea so we should get on it once we've gotten clearance from whoever else was involved in that. Arstar 00:16, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
On Lincoln, I would love to negotiate with Yank to move the boundaries to the geographic southern half of the state. However, so far, he has it in his mind that the Republic would have developed in the east, including settling some of Iowa. I added the idea of Missouri and Kansas as a necessary corralary to crossing state lines. As for Colorado, I can see the expansion going all the way down the eastern border, thus affording a continuation of the US without interruption into Kansas.
The other editor working on the Dakotas is Zack. He asked me to help and I got together a map and a flag. That's about as far as it got, really. I agree that is the next step. SouthWriter 05:08, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
So I am going to talk to Yank today about the border swap, but in the mean time we should start with writing the Dakotas. I will take care of the Colorado expansion, but since your the caretaker of the US apparently do you want me to write it in, yourself, or both of us? Arstar 19:52, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
I figure you can do a good job on it all by yourself. I see that the expansion section was yours anyway, so expanding that section will be your task. It is strange that we haven't done anything on that page in over a year as it is. The miniscule "expansion" that had occurred by that time (Nov. 5, 2010) seems a bit of an underachievement given the time-span of over 25 years. You list a rebuilt town of "377 ... and growing." Wow, what a pioneering spirit [sarcasm]! With Ft. Collins as the biggest city in the nation, I'd say that just the population from that city alone would provide more than 377 when given the chance to resettle.
I think also that the expansion down the eastern part of the state will be necessary to keep Kansas from being cut off from the US when and if Lincoln is allowed to expand west along the Platte. SouthWriter 21:37, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
You guys need to have a look at maps of both Utah and the Navajo Nation. That Colorado map, while a step in the right direction, can't work. Lordganon 10:09, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
CTRL + left click to view full size in separate tab
I have taken the story line and the rough maps available to reconstruct the probable boundaries of "Utah" (better known as Deseret). I used OTL population maps for the year 2000 to propose the approximate boundaries based mostly on OTL county lines. I guessed on Dineteh's boundaries in Utah and Colorado as well.
The Utah page needs to make it plainer as to how and why survivors along I-15 would have traveled down I-70 all the way to the Eisenhower tunnel to "protect" themselves from refugees from Denver. Aside from the survivors that took refuge in (or just happened to be escaping via) the tunnel, most refugees from Denver would have ended up in Ft. Collins anyway. The early development of the Utah/Deseret article seems a little implausible when it comes to its eastern borders and probably needs to go up for review. It was created by Louisiannan whose last contribution was a little over a year ago (17 months as far as the Utah article is concerned), so it may be "up for adoption" if we make any significant adjustments. What do you think? SouthWriter 03:23, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
I agree that some adjustments need to me made to Utah since 17 months ago since as far as the community is concerned the way articles were written back then is nothing but a forgotten era. And as a lot of our original members are gone, leaving their articles in the dust, we should help bring it up to date with whats happening now. LG's map is slightly overexaggerating Deseret's control and is definitely inaccurate in Dinetah and I even stated above that my map was approximate but at the end of the day I think Colorado's border would be adjacent to Dinetah's and Deseret/Utah's borders, since an area as heavily populated as this would likely have no more "no-mans land" between the three states.
Before we fray from the topic it is the eastern border we are concerned about not the western one. Colorado will expand to the south until it reaches the Purgatoire River and then any future growth will primarily occur in the center of the state. I'll have to write up the summary today and flesh it out towards Thursday-Friday but I'll see to it that I get something done today.
PS: I was wondering if I could upload a new map for the United States article, one which is more "editable" than the current one. Do you want me to add it now or let you deal with the map? Either way the format can be found here.
Please look at more maps, Arstar, before acting like that. The boundaries for the two states on mine are taken off of several older maps, and are wholly accurate. And it is already right next to each other. Apologies for this note, South. Lordganon 02:20, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
First, I think you wanted this link - the full sized map! And a reminder, this link will not work for 24 hours starting about an hour from now (12 midnight, EST) due to a political protest by supposedly neutral Wikipedia (english) version. For the adventurous, try other spots via Google "today." Or even try the Spanish version at es.wikipedia.org. Looking at the two maps, I think the one at the Spanish language site is better! :-)
Anyway, I'm with the plan on the expansion down to the Purgatoire. The population around the bombed cities and bases south of Denver would probably have escaped into the countryside between I-25 and the stateline anyway. As for LG's map, it was adequate based on the information at the time. If anything, the claimed eastern border of "Utah" did not reach far enough based on the comandeering of the tunnel "on the Utah side." I had just let that pass when I first read it since I was not all that concerned with the "PUSA" at the time. Heck, I argued against the nation for a while myself.
That being said, I must admit that the power of a few determined Mormons to hold on to as much of the area as possible is admirable. I am not so sure they would control as much as the maps show, but they could sure "claim" whatever they could get away with in the post-DD world! I think there will probably be some discussion about their holding on to western Colorado now that the USA has asserted its "right" to expansion within the borders of Colorado. The residents of "Greater Grand Junction Area" would have to agreed to being protected by Utah forces in order for that huge chunk of Colorado to just be claimed like the article shows. SouthWriter 04:45, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
I can go a day without using Wikipedia but I'm actually against their decision to shut the site because by doing so they are obviously breaking their Sharia-style code of "neutrality". I'm actually for the Bill they're protesting but that's neither here nor there.
Anyways do you think I could lay "claim" to the rest of the state or should it be organized into a territory of sorts?
Either way Colorado just needs to be fleshed out and its done, we need to get on with the Dakotas :-) Arstar 04:57, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
Apalachicola
I know that some of the communities I added do not exist. They are communities built in the forest itself to house the various refugees from the rest of florida and the neighboring states. I named one "New Athens" because of the failed survivor state in Georgia. I named one "Libertyville" because it sounded like a good old-fashioned American name. I named the last one "New Hooverville" because, as a shantytown, it is litterally a new "Hooverville". All it would take for it to be named that is for one resident to have a book on the great depression. The Apalachicolans have all that space in the forest, and would naturally gain refugees so why couldn't they use some land to house the refugees? This is the orginial idea I had when I created Apalachicola, a nation of refugees living in the forest like New Mongomery (minus the racism).
Yeah, that's about what I figured. It looks like Arstar accidently knocked out your post so I restored it for you! Anyway. The choices work okay, and I think I will work in some of them. New towns in the forest would certainly spring up for a while. If you haven't checked already, I put the idea in the article. There will be an independent nation-state of Apalachicola, but it will dissolve in favor of statehood in the Republic of Florida in the recent past. Most of your idea can be incorporated in the history section. If the story line is too long, we can make a new article to which to link.
Like I said when I adopted the article, I am from those parts and I kind of know how those folk think. I changed the present leadership to the present mayor of Apalachicola and my cousin who lives near Wewahitchka. Since the capital is in an establised town, the makeshift settlements are an artifact of history. I produced an artifact by merging a house or two into an actual photo of the forest. Let me know your ideas on the development of the independent state and I will try to honor the intent of your original article. SouthWriter 05:26, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
U.S. States formation (PP)
Hi South, how are you? I hope fine. :) I'm working in my timeline Presidente Portales, and i'm thinking that as in the TL there is not Texas and California, so, the efforts to populate moved to the northwest, leading to the early creation of some states or territories. Here is the ideas that i have:
Kansas in 1851 (as territory) and 1858 (as state).
Nebraska in 1851 (as territory) and 1864 (as state).
Minnesota in 1854 as state.
Dakota Territory in 1857.
Montana Territory (including Wyoming) in 1861.
I would want your opinion about this. Thanks. Regards! --Katholico 19:06, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
Hola! Muy bien, gracias. I will do more research on Wikipedia tomorrow (it's down today), but I'd say the dates and development of these territories and states look about right. It does follow, though, that settlement would track northwest with the better part of the southwest being Spanish and Mexican. There may not have been as much eagerness to reach the west coast if the gold in California belonged to Mexico. SouthWriter 18:00, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
Oki. I will take note of that point. Thanks :) --Katholico 19:19, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Recreation (1983: Doomsday)
Check the talk page of the Recreation page at 1983: Doomsday. RandomWriterGuy 23:08, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Finishing up the Dakotas
Hey South. Since we got distracted with the whole Dakota rewrite I was wondering if I could go do it myself. I'll write in my "Ideas" page and then run it by you if you have any problems. Let me know if you agree or not, thanks. Arstar 04:48, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
Wabash Union
No, I have not abandoned Wabash. It's just that my final exams are coming up, and I won't be contributing much to the wiki for the coming week. I already have some ideas for Wabash, but I haven't gone around to typing it up yet. I'll put it up as in progress, though. Thanks for your time.
If you'd actual bother to look past your "tinted" glasses, you'd note that I'm actually following the rules. Notice how the "review" tag never left the article? And how it remained on the main pages? And that I never touched the blasted article's content?
...
Majority consensus has already indicated that it must be changed. And your recent post is still ignoring almost all of the arguments on that page, and not even a complete "no," even, on much of what it does touch on. Something that I've pointed out several times. Not been dismissed, at all - but very much so acknowledged as having had absolutely nothing on more than half of the conversation. Notice how the argument more or less dropped what you said things about? And, as such, a majority is in favor of removing the offending portions.
I am very tired of you shoving that line out whenever we have a dispute, even when I'm following the rules, over interpretations of the rules, or arguments in general. You don't even attempt to be reasonable anymore - you just trot out that line. And that's the last time you're going to post it without the response of posting to the group about it.
So, let me say this, clearly: Threaten me again like that, especially without reason, and there will be a post about it on the admin talk page. You have brought this on yourself by continually making such unwarranted threats.
I made it plain what I meant, LG. I undid Smoggy's "protect" to put the situation before she did what you admit was wrong. You immediately redid the protect. And what I meant in the personal note to you was that there are still several days left to the review process, so it is NOT decided yet. I pointed out in my last post that the point about the towns was not the point of the original complaint. I even try to include most of the quotes as context (which should not be necessary due to the nature of the string) and you complain that it is unreadable.
The Rule that to which I was referring is the 30 day time frame. No decision can be made until then. With Oer's remarks, it is now 3-2 in favour of removing the changes. There are still 6 days until the review process is over. As I stated earlier, I am willing to go with whatever the community decides, but making a pre-emptive decision ahead of schedule is indeed breaking the rules.
What I said in my note was only the second time I have brought up discussing your behaviour with anybody "higher up." The first time was privately and nothing was said publicly. So I have not been "continually" threatening you. If this were to go to the administrative talk page, I am not afraid of what might be said there. The community on the althistory wiki has been patient with you, LG, but you might be surprised what you find when you go complaining about how someone is responding to you.
Indeed, have a nice day. SouthWriter 20:51, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the support Southwriter. I have read up further on Bob Hawke that day and he was at Perth at dawn on Doomsday and likely stayed for further functions and celebrations as it was also the Queen's Birthday in Western Australia. Most politicians would have gone home as Canberra is very lacking in many areas due to it not being in a convinient location. Canberra was only built as a purely political city due to the squabbling of NSW and Victoria with neither allowing the capitial of Australia to be in the opposite state. Therefore the location of Canberra is at just about the most inconvenient in Australia with no value in terms of industry or commerce or tourism. Most politicians therefore would not risk uprooting their family for a potential one term of three years. And the many sitting breaks allow politicians to return home. (Australia has about 60 sitting days a year). Scandinator (talk) 00:03, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I should have known you'd head over here (I like to be able to look above to see to what you are referring). Being Australian, you would know a lot more about these things than a Canadian or American would. As I said in my note, the day of the dawn reference was the 27th, or one day after the attacks. The exchange of nukes began in the wee hours of Sept. 26 in Moscow, which translates to later that day in Australia and to the afternoon and evening of the 25th in America. I assume that Hawke was staying at the governor's mansion in Perth on the 26th while on holiday. The previous eight days must have been quite something with Australia II bringing the yacht race around Manhattan to a tie. It's a shame that the win didn't happen in TTL, though.
The points you make about Parliament being on holiday are quite valid, and as I wrote on your talk page this is going to get interesting. You will need to correct yourself about the dates of the America's Cup race, though, for the date in question was the 26th in America where the race was being hosted. The next year in OTL the race moved to Perth for 1984. Other than that, you did well in making your points on the main page. I suppose it was worthy of the "Fundamental Issues" section, being that it is the center of the Anglosphere in the 1983DD universe, but technically I believe the discussion should be moved to a formal "Review" in the section directly above that one.
You will have to be more specific, though, about where some of the politicians were on that day. "Most likely" usually works in the proposal stage, but in the review stage the challenger needs to have more to go on. State governments, not being in session on Monday, would have been hard to locate and warn. The governors, if at home or carrying beepers for emergencies, might have been contacted by authorities upon verification that nukes were headed their way. You are probably right, though, for the time for an ICBM to get to Australia from Russia would be less than that for it to get to New York or even Alaska. I suggest you check with Brian to collaborate the changes that need to me done, because the "Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand" article has been developed by him. I think I made a point somewhere (or maybe I just wanted to) that New Zealand was in a better position to become the center of government in the South Pacific anyway.
I'm sorry this is not over on your talk page, but I've never got used to bouncing around talk pages and I can't easily bring up split screens. I noticed that you have been discussing Australia with Ganon for almost two months and have been having fruitful discussions. Keep up the good work, but remember, you are the resident of the nation for which you are writing. This is both good and bad. It is good because you have better access to local sources (Wikipedia is not the best source at times). It is bad because of what we have been told about writing about our "home towns" (I'm one of those!) -- we tend to make things better than they would be. Of course, your questions are doing the opposite of that, so that doesn't seem to be a problem here.
I look forward to your progress in this project. SouthWriter 02:13, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
RE: Superfluous edits
I understand and I'll refrain from doing that in the future.
Hi. I posted a while while while back expressing some interest in how Macon and the surrounding area fared in the 1983:DD timeline. I've rekindled my interest in writing it up, and since you're the guy for Neonotia, I wanted to run some things by you before I bother going much farther with them:
1: Kirby Godsey - In OTL, Kirby Godsey was the president of Mercer University in Macon. In 1983DD, I'd like to have him (and a group of Mercer faculty, students, and staff) ride out DD in shelters on the Mercer campus and eventually travel southwards to Neonotia, where he becomes a major player - never a governor, but perhaps a trusted advisor to Carter and a significant figure throughout the decades. A kingmaker, if you will. Godsey would be in charge of some of the nation's major social programs, focusing on the "Three E's" - Education, Energy, Expansion. I'm basing all of this on OTL's Godsey, who basically took Mercer from the brink of bankruptcy and turned it into a fairly prestigious university through a combination of fundraising know-how and willingness to be controversial.
2: Michael Stipe - OTL, the lead singer of REM. As far as I can tell, the entire band was in Athens on DD, and it's plausible that some of them survived. I'd have him travel south, relatively incognito (REM had put out a pretty well received first album by DD, but weren't huge celebrities or anything) and spend the rest of his life in Neonotia as a writer and artist, eventually dying of DD-related cancers. After his death, it turns out he wrote a pretty through account of the last days of Athens...
3: Sonny Perdue - You have him eventually becoming governor of Neonotia, and that's cool. Mostly what I'd be focusing on are the days shortly after DD - the reconstruction of Perry, inviting the students and faculty of Fort Valley State University to come to Perry and help get some viable agriculture going, eventually meeting up with the Godsey group (Perdue and Godsey develop a love-hate-respect relationship) before being forced to flee southwards into the developing Neonotia because of encroaching violence (I have him taking his entire group and traveling south, hoping to find the Agrirama in Tifton, which was OTL a functioning replica of an 1800's farming village, complete with tools, animals, etc.) That's where he meets up with Carter and the Neonotians.
Just some thoughts - I might add more in a bit. -hx 14:59, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest, hx, there is not much activity in the 1983DD universe (especially in the former USA). As far as I can see, survival in downtown Macon is probably not very possible. The FEMA map shows bombs hitting all around the city but not directly over it. The Georgia gateway article (which I wrote) simply says that Macon was a target. As you have noticed, the paragraph on Perdue only mentions Warner Robbins, but combined with two more bombs in the area, the destruction of Macon would be quite complete. Could the basements of Mercer University survive? Or would Macon citizens instead seek to escape upon first warnings. Would mayor George Israel have evacuated or at least organized evacuation in the hour or so before nuclear bombs exploded over the area? Short answer to the question about Godsey - he probably would not have survived if he stayed on campus.
I like the idea of having Michael Stipe escape Athens. I am not sure if getting to Neonotia would have succeeded, but if so, he could provide information not only about the fall of Athens but also the survival of people between Athens and Neonotia. His route out would be US 441 and he would pass through the communities around Lake Oconee (mentioned somewhere in discussion). This would put him in eastern Neonotia (possibly as far over as Tifton where he could join the folks at the Agrirama), so contact with the government in Americus. Not much is known about the east besides the coastal town of Darien. Write a proposal and we'll see where it goes. Remember the format when creating a page: Name of Article (1983: Doomsday). Put the "ddprop" template in the first line and add it to the main talk page of 1983 Doomsday as a proposal and the kinks can be ironed out. I'm supposing that the article, in mentioning towns that survived but not so far mentioned, will be a bit controversial. But I have held for a long time that such exist, so things can be worked out.
You're welcome to write a page about Sonny Perdue as well. If you can figure out how to get Kirby Godsen out of Macon, I am sure that he could work with Perdue. Remember, Perdue was a Democrat until recently, so the relationship may go better than you think. If you throw Mayor Israel into the mix, perhaps things can get interesting. You will note, though, that under Carter power was restored at least to central Neonotia. The facilities at Tifton would probably be unnecessary soon after the meeting of the leaders there. I am not sure what the "encroaching violence" you mention has to do with Perry and Fort Valley. I have Perdue saving the town from distruction due to the fires that are spreading toward the town. Do you mean to insinuate that the majority black population of Ft. Valley would over-run the majority white populaton of Perry? It is possible, but that is the kind of unrest that Carter works hard to quell as he establishes Neonotia. Perdue had the support of not just Perry, but the whole area, when he was elected to the senate. This means that the violence would have been a thing of the past by then.
Summary: (1) Survival of Godsen is problematic; (2) Survival of Stipe is probable; (3) Perdue would have established peace in Perry-Ft. Valley. SouthWriter 19:13, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Okay, here's what I was thinking, in more-or-less bulletpoint responses:
Macon in general - Near as I can tell, the targets around Macon are Warner Robins AFB in Houston County, Plant Scherer in Monroe County, and the city of Milledgeville in Baldwin County - Macon/Bibb County itself does not appear to be a direct target, and the closest of those locations is still a good 20-30 miles away. In my workup, I have Macon possibly being hit towards the end with conventional warheads, primarily aimed at taking out the I-75/I-16 interchange and rendering the Ocmulgee River impassable as a way of disrupting potential supply lines, but no nukes. As for Plant Scherer, it's mentioned on one or two other pages (IIRC, the one about southern SC, at least) that the Soviets for some reason or another used conventional warheads against power plants, so I have Plant Scherer being hit by a conventional strike - destroyed beyond salvage, but not radioactive. Milledgeville is on some lists of targets (the map you shared) but not on others. It's of fairly low strategic importance (pretty much the only things worth destroying in that area are a military college and a dam that provides some electrical power to the region) so I had it survive, but empty out pretty quickly as the locals fear the strikes on Plant Scherer were nukes and they're directly downwind. It's a ghost town by mid-84, with a small survivor community in the former State Mental Hospital.
In Macon, the biggest problem I see is general chaos. Power is out, electronics are largely useless, refugees are starting to flow in from the strike to the south and within a week, survivors from the rest of the state start showing up. Parts of the city burn, and other parts are certainly affected by the strike on Warner Robins, but other parts are relatively intact, at least at first. Macon, in some ways, might be a prime candidate to become a survivor state, if it wasn't for the fact that it's surrounded on virtually all sides by destruction - anyone fleeing from south Atlanta, Savannah, or Warner Robins, and some of the refugees from Augusta and Columbus would probably end up there, creating pretty much a worst-case scenario for a city that wasn't directly bombed. Mayor Israel and other city leaders might try for a while to maintain control, but I see things going sour pretty quickly. Godsey and his group see the writing on the wall and get out of there before everything goes completely to hell.
Michael Stipe - Yeah, pretty much this. Since that part of the state hasn't been discussed much, I'd probably leave it as "Stipe & co. drifted southwards, occasionally encountering friendly survivor communities, occasionally having to hide from raiders. Eventually they wound up in what was becoming Neonotia and settled in." Leave it vague enough that if anyone wants to write up those areas more thoroughly, there's certainly room for it.
Perdue - I wasn't implying any sort of racial discord between Perry and Fort Valley - the threat I was going to propose was that as the fallout dies down and the stretch between Macon and Perry becomes more passable, the chaos in that part of the region starts to flow southwards. Basically, the strike on Warner Robins and the ensuing fallout creates a hot zone that keeps people north of it from getting to Perry for a while, long enough for Perdue to bring about some order from the chaos, but just as they're getting settled in and starting to work things out, that barrier starts to come down.
Basically, I see the central Georgia region being a "worst case scenario" kind of thing - there are lots of other survivor states that made something happen, they pulled it off, or they got unreasonably lucky breaks. This one goes bad, and it goes bad fast. By '90 or so, there's only scattered pockets of civilization left, mostly remote family farms and a handful of agricultural villages that live in fear of the occasional raid - most of them don't even know the others exist. Barnesville and Monticello are 40 miles apart, but in TTL neither one is even aware that the other has a survivor community, because nobody has ever gone to the other one and made it back alive. (turns out there's a pretty strong raiding group based out of the old Tift College campus in Forsyth.) -hx 15:17, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
Good points, Hx. I am with you on the probable nuke being only the one that takes out Warner Robbins AFB. However, it would not be directly over the base. Instead it seems that it would be a large air burst between Warner Robbins and Macon, destroying most of both. The other two strikes don't make a whole lot of sense unless the Nuclear Power Plant was targeted. The one up near I-20 on the map seems to be in the middle of nowhere rather than over Millegeville (a historical city of no strategic significance). The map is an overlay of the FEMA strikes in a worst case scenario. That map was a guideline and strikes have been decided based on "first strike" priorities. You are generally correct about the SC reference. That was my rationalizing putting in a major state in upper SC. Brian's article about strikes in the SE US did not mention strikes there, though the map has strikes over the nuclear plants across the area.
Macon would not survive based on the strikes around it. But I can see where Godsey could survive (perhaps in the basement with his cohorts as you say) and escape via Highway 19 to Jeffersonville. His group could be instrumental in organizing eastern Neonotia even before Carter's government knows there are survivors there. At some point early on they would cross I-16 (a line of demarcation for northern Neonotia) and work their way over to Tifton. As for Israel and the leadership of Macon, I see any who survive making it over to Perry. The case for multiple strikes around Macon, though, brings to mind a discussion we had about Charlotte. The FEMA maps seemed to indicate that the city was smack in the middle of three strikes, but could have survived. We decided that such would not have been the case.
You bring up an interesting scenario for the population between Warner Robbins and south Atlanta. We can go back to your original inquiry about the area. The key to the chaos may very well be what happens with the prisoners. The reason there is very little life in the area could be the "warlords" that arise because of the release and/or escape of the prisoners. I think, though, that there might be a self-sustaining community around Lake Oconee. Warlords might be a problem in the area, but towns like Eatonton and Madison would stand against them (or at least have some sort of "agreement" with the stronger ones).
Back to Godsey, I think he could be a player sometime in the early 2000's as Neonotia begins to stabilize as a nation. It would have established its borders and set up a network of support between the towns and cities within them. This is when Godsey, as an organizer in the east, would come into play.
Again, thanks for your interest. Stay around a bit longer this time. SouthWriter 06:34, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
hello
hey south, how's it been, i am on facebook or wiki somewhere almost everyday. i am even an ADMIN on some wikis. so i take vandalism very personly. even if it's not one of my pages. if see it i deal with it! anyway that was one of the pages i was folowing so i was in a position to take care of it. feel free to essage me if i can be of help anytime.Wingman1 04:48, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Your blog
Hi South, make sure you keep An Atheist's Objections restored! You're completely right, NCNC doesn't apply to blogs. And besides, I think it's the most interest blog I've ever come across, so yeah! You've my support! Feg 07:05, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
i think it's gone for good Feg.Wingman1 13:19, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Feg, And no, it's not gone, I can a"undelete" it indefinitely. It is a matter of will. It was Mitro that borought up the NCNC the first day of the blog. Users, including Feg, objected and the discussion went on for about a month before petering out and getting totally off topic. There it sat until an anonymous editor asked a question a couple of days ago. Then LurkerLordB attached the "delete" template which I removed due to it's having passed Mitro's objection long ago. Ganon followed through with the delete anyway. SouthWriter 18:14, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
South, if you want or feel you need a new place to post that blog i can offer you one, and give you the "powers" needed to protect it. send me a message on my page if you want to do this.Wingman1 22:47, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Wingman. I'll keep that in mind. However, I'll hang on right now. I am of "equal authority" with Ganon right now. I can't protect the site from administrators, but Ganon has extended his harassment far enough now. I don't think he wants to keep it up. SouthWriter 00:13, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
incomeing message.Wingman1 03:23, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks SW
Thanks South for the welcome. I also hope to collaborate in any works in the future. :) Regards! --Katholico 03:03, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
Hi South. Just now i saw your comment. You refer to the blog An atheist's objections, right? I think that i understand well the policies, but i will read it again in any case. Give me a time. --Katholico 04:55, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
NC/NC Discussion
You're right of course; a few months ago I would have tried to defend you, but Being Right on this wiki is no longer worth it to me. Benkarnell 16:50, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Ben, you know that Ganon will read this, don't you? :-/
Anyway, your absense from the discussion shouldn't make much difference. Even LurkerLordB thinks the deletion doesn't make sense. Against overwhelming opposition, Ganon has no other choice. I doubt if anyone will be posting non-ah related blogs ever again, but I don't think Ganon has made his point to the community. The blog is available in my sandbox (I couldn't move it easily, so it is more like a "talk page" entry.
I am going to move that a policy be made as to purpose of a blog should be (as set out on the help page). It may be that the adminstrators will vote that "anything goes" in such a format (as it does everywhere else on the internet). SouthWriter 18:04, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
South, did you get get the message i sent you. the other day? i think it was on another wiki, i am not sure. it was about the blog.Wingman1 18:09, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
good, my message went where i wanted. i a folowing all the talk regarding the NCNC. i havent put my 2 cent's in yet, except where i offered you the place to host it. but i aggree some of the admin's do need to lightin up a bit.Wingman1 18:54, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ;)
Hello SouthWriter, thanks for your remarks, I will not edit anymore till I have readed the guides again, indeed, I want to know if I am free too upload my own alternate history, just only last question, do I have to think that if I edited a timeline which is in the list of contributable wikis ( as it is new union), that means that you can edit as a proposal ( not as definitive) part of that timeline. No edits in New Union were reversed after I did make them, except a correction on the number of Islands ceded to Japan by the Soviet Union.
And yes, english isn't my native language, those are catalan and spanish. I say i am a newbie because I think I don't have collaborated so much since I was registered.
the previous note is mine
Breizhcatalonia1993
1918: Pandemic
I want to talk to you about an idea I have. The basic premise is that the Spanish Influenza pandemic killed enough people to effectively destroy civilization as they knew it. Would this idea be possible?
Wow. What a thought to sleep on. It is time for me to go to bed now, Yank, but I'll let you know about that sometime on Monday. Right off, I'd say no, but there may be some way to spin the pandemic. SouthWriter 03:31, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
If I might offer a thought, I think it could be spun. I study disasters and have read quite a few books on the Spanish Flu in particular. The virus first appeared in the US and swept around the world during which it mutated and began to really take lives. I have read quite a number of accounts of people being fine in the morning and dying by the end of the day. I saw one account which chilled me by a doctor who was trying to draw blood from an ill patient and reported it being in such a jelled state it jammed the hypo. What if the virus mutated into another even deadlier version, say in the US and hit the world in another wave? We know that it was being spread by human contact. In the US for example, when they held war bond drives, there followed massive outbreaks. I could see Europe a mess, with German, British, American, and French soldiers to name a few acting as bands of mercenaries and pillaging the already war torn countryside to survive. Hope this helps.--Fxgentleman 14:41, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
RE: NC/NC phrasing
Hi South, I meant 'excepting NC/NC', so discussions about topics considered impermissable on timeline talk pages because of NC/NC would be allowed on blogs (such as religion and politics). Obviously the function of NC/NC would be to keep things civil and avoid any obviously insensitive and rude statements in these debates. In that case the admin would probably have a word with the creator of the blog and those who made the statements.
That said I've just spent the day in Belgium and I'm not thinking entirely straight! I do agree we need to have a debate over what constitutes NC/NC nowadays. I hope I clarified! Speak soon, Feg 21:36, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
It looks like Ganon took your post as meaning that you think that any discussion of religion or politics should be off limits in blogs. To be honest, that is the gist of your post. It might be good to post a clarification stating "any subjects as long as they are civil" or something like that. I am open to the possibilty of such a policy of censorship of blogs, but it seems against the spirit of both the NCNC policy and the community flavor. It definitely needs to be addressed, for it is not as clear as Ganon thinks it is. I will respond also on your talk page under this same topic (I hate hopping back and forth!). SouthWriter 03:15, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
PS I hope your trip to Belgium went well.
Petition and new alternate history.
Hello Again, SouthWriter, I contact you for told you that I have made my own alternate history to add it here, it has been added but it had some problems in which some letters came out of my writing space when you read my Alternate History. Could you change that and saw if i have followed correctly the rules for adding and Alternate History? Please Respond before LordGanon makes a remark to me or blocks me for editing this wiki.
Hi, Breizh, I first read your time line and then edited out the formatting problem. It appears that you cut and pasted from HTML editing software. The odd spacing and loss of letters was due to the HTML code. If you are going to cut and paste, do so in the "Source" mode with ordinary text. It is better, if you have time and access to the web, to compose right on wiki. This can be done in either "Source" or "Visual" mode, with the "Visual" being the best for most editing projects.
I found the grammar a bit hard to follow while reading the time line, however. Perhaps you may want to write it in Spanish and either run it through an online translator or, better yet, see if Detectivekenny (Kenny) or Katholico is willing to translate it for you. Kenny writes very good English, so he would be the best one to try. There are others on the wiki that can do translation work as well. Send me the translation by opening MY SANDBOX, clicking "Edit" and pasting it there. The page has your name on it.
One more thing, in making a page as extensive as the one you have written, you should rename it using the naming rules. I suggest "Timeline (Rossiskaya Imperiya KD)" for the new name. Instead of redirecting, however, create a new page named "Rossiskaya Imperiya KD" in which you introduce the time line and put links to supporting articles (people, places, and so on). Each of these would have a name like "Czar Alexandria II (Rossiskaya Imperiya KD)." The page you have by itself is called a "gateway" article and should lead to more detailed pages, such as the time line. We don't all do that with every time line, but that is the way it works best.
If you are putting up your own time line, you will not be asked to quit editing because it is now yours. Any changes will be made only by permission (except perhaps small spelling and grammar changes). I hope these suggestions help, but if they you need clarification, let me know. SouthWriter 18:41, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
changes :)
I have made the changes that you recommended with the exception that i had to had "explanation" to Rossiskaya Imperiya KD, because if not it redirects itself to the timeline. Translation things will be asked tomorrow.
Hi, again. I fixed your signature. Instead of trying to make a link (you left off the "User:" part) just put in three tildes (four if you want to leave a time stamp). Three tildes produces what I have made above. If you want to sign your name as "Breizh," though, just put that to the right of the vertical line. There is a way to set your signature, but I have never altered mine from my full user name (the default if you use the tildes).
I had prepared a tutorial about how to fix your naming problem, but thought of an easier way and just did it myself. Your problem was that you linked to "Rossiskaya Imperiya KD" when you wanted to go to "Timeline (Rossiskaya Imperiya KD)." I renamed (and thereby "moved") the "Rossiskaya Imperiya KD (Explanation)" page back to "Rossiskaya Imperiya KD" and then fixed the link. I cleaned a little of the grammar up as well.
I look forward to working with you. By the way, I was going to suggest the "Grammar" template but Lordganon beat me to it. It is a courtesy template and not meant to offend. --SouthWriter 02:33, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Hello again south, this time I write to you because my page of Tsarina Sofia I has been removed and moved and created again as Tsarina Sofia I (Rossiskaya Imperiya KD), why? it appears that it has been Lordganon but i don't want to accuse he without proofs. Breizhcatalonia1993 11:39, May 15, 2012
It's called renaming, Breizh. As I said above we have naming rules on this wiki. If it is a page that supports the "RI" time line, it needs to be followed by the time line in parenthesis. The proof is in the "history" of the page if you ever need it. In this case, though, no harm was done since LG did you a favor without scolding you. And please, remember the 4 tildes (or just use the signature button. There is a reminder note at the top of the page! SouthWriter 16:08, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
ok.
Ok, I will try to the the three tildes thing but the first time maybe it can not work as i didn't understand completly your explanations. One question, does Kenny understand Spanish? I ask it for the translation that you suggested for a better grammar. And I know about LordGanon's template, that would be the edits of him that I saw he had made in my page. Would you like to contribute in my articles? it will be an honour due to your help and "welcome". Btw, i was thinking in Russia returning the Kuril Islands to Japan in the timeline, what do you think? Oh, and lastly, I specially liked that "against all odds" in the part referring to South Africa of the Article.
A tilde is made by holding the shift key down and striking the key to the left of "1." Three time will produce your signature and four times will include the date and time with the signature.
Kenny lives in Peru and lists Spanish as one of his languages on his profile, so I am pretty sure he understands Spanish. He worked hard on an article for 1983: Doomsday that is about your area.
I am not sure I have time to work on your article, but I might have some time to stop in and check on grammar and things. And yes, returning the Kuril islands to Japan sounds like a good idea to me. --SouthWriter 16:31, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
signature.
Huh, i did the signature thing but i think i did it double :P btw, FS translator is best, not your error :P
The signature worked fine. Good work. It is funny about the translation because we both used the same translator. He must have been "thinking" in Catalon and not knowing it! There were some basic errors in his English (he used the past tense and he had "your" for you, for instance). Oh well. SouthWriter 17:18, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
Now I know it, by the way, I speak English quite better than I write it. but just a question, how you add the "talk" link in your signature?.
First, I am pretty sure you will need to go into "Source" mode to add the "talk" link. In any case, that is the only way I know to do it. If you look at the code above in source mode, you will see that the link (inside of the double brackets) begins with the word "User." If you replace "User" with "User talk" the link will move from your profile page to your talk page. If you want a separate link, add double brackets around the "User talk" address and add "(talk) after the vertical line (Shift + "\" [under the backspace]). Include a space either between the signature and the new link or inside the brackets. Neither method produces the date stamp. Below are the links as I have described them.
I will check and see how to create these without having to go into code. SouthWriter 17:07, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, as you may have noticed, SS was able to help me. You can make the signature work every time you use the tildes if you change the default signature using your preferences.
To reach the preferences, move your cursor to your user name and icon in the right corner. The mouseover should show a menu. If not, click on the tiny arrow to the right of your User name.
Choose "My preferences" and change your signature, being sure to click the box next to "I want to use wikitext in my signature."
Then, in the box for a new signature, follow the instructions above. If you want your name to be the link, it will work like I said. If you want the link to follow your name and be the only link, do not use wikitext on your text signature.
You will notice that I changed my signature to reflect these steps. If you have any trouble, you can copy the links I made above (from the "Source" mode) and paste the one you like in the box in your preferences. Don't forget to click "Save" when you are done.
Here is your name without a link to your profile page: Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk). You can shorten your signature to "Breizh" in this way as well. Or to whatever you want, such as your real name if you want. --SouthWriter (talk) 17:01, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
Re:Customized Signature
Ah, ok, I can help you. There are in fact two ways to do it. All you have to do is create a page on the wiki called "User:enter username here/SigReal" and once that page is created, anyone can write whatever they want. Say they wrote "Cow song." Then, whenever they sign with "~~~~" the words "Cow song" will appear. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:43, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, SS. I'll try it. What is the other way? SouthWriter 04:03, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, man, but that didn't work. Do you have to format it first? --SouthWriter 04:11, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
I'm still trying, I formatted the signature and nothing changes. SouthWriter 04:24, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
The other way is by going to your preferences. You check the box that says "Custom signature" and then write whatever. A good example of a SigReal page is Courageous Life's one. I helped him to do it. Maybe you can check it out there. Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 04:48, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. A simple mouseover of the my user name and icon! Who'd have thought? :-)
For some reason I checked everywhere else! And note: I changed my signature to add a link to my talk page. SouthWriter (talk) 16:32, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the link does not work when it is on the page to which it links! Now that I think about it, I remember seeing that on other pages as well. I'll try the new signature out on your talk page! SouthWriter (talk) 16:37, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
It worked like a charm. Brought me right back to this page! SouthWriter (talk) 16:41, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
I am making more articles for my timeline but i can't attach them to the "Rossiskaya Imperiya KD" with the link tool, with the previous articles I did can link those articles to "Rossiskaya Imperiya KD" but with the new ones i can't.
First, I need to see what you have tried. But generally, using the "Visual" mode if you have the wiki address correct, a live link should be established when you make the link. In creating the new articles, make sure that the link contains the full address of the article. I suspect that the links you made earlier are acting as redirects to the renamed articles.
So, I will work you through an example, creating a page in my sandbox:
Let us say that the page is called "Sample (Timeline)" I want to link from this word: Sample.
I would first highlight the word I want to link to the page.
Then I would click on the "link" icon (third from left, looks like a chain).
The popup screen will have to spaces, both with the word "Sample." The top one will be highlighted asking for an address.
For a wiki address you will need only the full name of the article. (My example will require more).
If the page has not been created yet, the link will be red (as you have noticed on your gateway page). If this is the case, as here, you can right click "Preview" to get a "live" link (use "Open Link in New Tab"). This will allow you to create the page with the full link name.
In short, remember the naming conventions in making the links. If the article is for "Empress Leah," the link has to be to "Empress Leah (Star Wars)." This is not a real page, for derivative works are not considered Alternate history!
I will check your links on the main gateway page to see if I can render further aid. SouthWriter (talk) 20:11, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have looked at the main page of your time line. It appears that you have not mastered the naming conventions. If you have subordinate articles, they need to have the extension: i.e. Article (Time Line). If you make an article and correctly name it, the link has to be to the full name of the link. Otherwise, the link will remain "red" and inactive. That is, if you name the link "Article," but the page is at "Article (Time Line), then the link will not work. Likewise, if you name the link "Article (Time Line)" but the page is at "Article," the link will not work.
It is not necessary for the text to match the link exactly, for links are in wiki code and not seen on the page. This becomes apparent when you move the cursor over the link (called a "mouse-over") and when you look at the "Source" mode in an edit. However, you must make sure that the page to which you want a link actually exists. --SouthWriter (talk) 20:37, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
One more thing, in order to change the articles to subordinates, bring down the menu from the "Edit" button and click on "Rename." It will allow you to rename the article and even leave a "redirect" from your original link. If you prefer to change the link on the original page, you can "uncheck" the redirect option, but the default setting is to redirect. This makes it unnecessary to change any links that direct to the original article. As Kogasa wrote on your talk page, some administrators get impatient due to the confusion caused with this naming procedure. It pays to read the instructions carefully. --SouthWriter (talk) 20:53, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
OK, South, i think i have to have a quite attentive look at your instructions, anyway it seems that you have modified the links.
Actually, the modifications were not by me. I think Lordganon did most of them, though some may have been done by Kogasa. I was waiting to see if you had any problems. Anyway, best wishes as you build the time line. SouthWriter (talk) 21:32, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, now im having no problems to link all my new articles that I create, but "Imperial duma of Deputies" still resists itself to be modified :P
Hello, SouthWriter, can you help me to check my grammar in the text for my ATL Japan's 1931 Republic Declaration (I made it by myself) :)
Declaration of the Republic of Japan Establishment (1931)
Our nation had been suffered a great and total loss about a years ago. That opened our eyes widely, clearly and brightly about the fact: our nation is still in backwardness than other nations in the world. This condition seems unchangeable and will remaining for the centuries forward. The tears, agony, and poverty will be continuing.
The pain what we have is still incurable. When we shouted, “Banzai! (Ten thousand years)”, it’s means not the ten thousand years of the Imperial reign, but means ten thousand years of the injustice and tyrannical reign. All of these modernizations are like the paper crane. It looks so real and gives us a hope. However, it is very weak and fake in reality.
Our country is like the frail tiger without teeth and claws. He looks strong enough and viewing by all as the King of the jungle. Nevertheless, those tiger is easy to fall into his own death without involved even in single fight.
If we still stay in those conditions, one day, we will fall under the reign of other nations. Our culture will perish. Our society will tear apart. Our lives would be suppressed. We will no longer ourselves. Wewillnoteven able to speakour own language. Wewillnotevenknowour own names. In the eyes of foreigners, we are nothing than the slaves, we are nothing than the barbarians.
When we, the people of the islands, heard and felt those insults, our honor, our soul, and our pride as the independent nation had been suffered, the suffer which even more painful than Death. But, they who rules over us, still keep silent, keep no actions, and keep no reactions when we already suffered.
We, the people of the islands, decided for not to stay silent. We decided to break the thousand years tradition for being an inhuman being who cannot express our own mind. We decided to break the limits between the nobles and the commoners to make this nation solely united in equality.
There is no a God-like human who will be our savior. There is no new Hideyoshi Toyotomi who will lead this nation out Her sufferings. Only us, united and undivided, in the firm association, be the comrade for each other, be the same-blood brothers and sisters, be the servants of Motherland, who will pull out this nation from this humiliation.
We, the people of the islands, hereby declare the foundation of the Republican government in our sacred Fatherland. From now and forever, these islands belong to its own peoples, neither belong to the nobles nor the tyrants nor the foreigners.
Our unity is unbreakable, our sovereignty is glorious and our independence is eternal which is more solid than the steel and the iron
Okay, FS, I reworked it to read smoothly to me. Here it is:
Establishment Declaration of the Republic of Japan (1931)
Our nation suffered a great and total loss about a year ago. That opened our eyes widely, clearly and brightly concerning the fact that our nation is still quite behind the other nations in the world. As long as this condition seems unchangeable, it will remain for the centuries to come. The tears, agony, and poverty will be continuing. The pain what we have is still incurable. When we shout, “Banzai! (Ten thousand years)”, it means not just ten thousand years of the Imperial reign, but also ten thousand years of the injustice and tyrannical reign. All of these modernizations are like the paper crane. It looks so real and gives us hope. However, it is really very weak and fake. Our country is like the frail tiger without teeth and claws. He looks strong enough and is viewed by all as the King of the jungle. However, this tiger could easily fall to his own death without being involved even in single fight. If we still stay in these conditions, one day, we will fall under the reign of other nations. Our culture will perish. Our society will tear apart. Our lives would be suppressed so that we will no longer be ourselves. We will not even be able to speak our own language. We will not even know our own names. In the eyes of foreigners, we would be nothing more than slaves or barbarians. When we, the people of the islands, hear and feel those insults, our honor, our soul, and our pride as the independent nation will suffer a pain even more painful than Death. But, they who rule over us, will still keep silent, doing nothing in reaction to what we already have suffered. We, the people of the islands, have decided not to stay silent. We have decided to break the anckient traditions which treat us as inhuman beings who cannot express our own mind. We have decided to break the limits between the nobles and the commoners to make this nation solely united in equality. There is no a God-like human who will be our savior. There is no new Hideyoshi Toyotomi who will lead this nation out Her sufferings. Only we, united and undivided, in the firm association, will be comrades with each other,the same-blood brothers and sisters, and servants of the Motherland, who will pull this nation out of this humiliation. We, the people of the islands, hereby declare the foundation of the Republican government in our sacred land. From now and forever, these islands belong to their own people, not to nobles nor to tyrants nor to foreigners. Our unity is unbreakable, our sovereignty is glorious and our independence is eternal which is more solid than steel or iron. Long live the Republic!
In the behalf of the People
The Chairman of National People's Conference
Nagayama Yoshida
I hope this helps. You might try typing it in your first language and running it through Google Translator to compare it to what I was able to do. Most of what you have done is translate your native syntax into English. When I ran Cantalon through the translator I found that such things as including "the" before general nouns (as above, "not to the nobles ...") were dealt with by that computer program. SouthWriter (talk) 19:38, May 24, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, SouthWriter, I will follow your advice. FirstStooge - The Simpleman 09:57, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
Foreign letters
Hey South, I was just wondering if you know how to insert foreign characters/letters - such as letters with umlauts, eszetts, and various Polish characters. I'm doing a Poland-related timeline and the unusual letters crop up very quickly! Feg 07:16, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
Since the Polish use the Roman alphabet, it seems you have mostly accents to deal with. For those, using Window's character map can do many if not most of what you want. For example, here is an "e" with a diaeresis: ë (made holding down the ALT while typing 0235). If you spell the whole word using the character map and then copy it, it pastes into wiki text just fine. You might find that they copy well from your source documents as well. SouthWriter (talk) 03:02, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
not sure what i am going to be able to do, it's looking like my ideas shot down. we talked about a Ware Shoals (1983: Doomsday) page before, i don't think i a going to be alowed to go forward with it. i am going to think more and add a bit on the Piedmont Republic page and see how it goes. i want to do a good job on this.Wingman1 05:26, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
i am gitting a bit discouraged with this wiki as a whole. everytime i make an edit, and i mean a "good fath edit" on a page it get's reverted by you know who. Every single time! (i do not feel that this is right)
i try to contribute to the wiki as a whole by editing on some pages that maybe don't get that much edits or views.
in light of this i a not sure if i want to or will be able to continue with my Ware Shoals (1983: Doomsday) ideas.
what do you think? if you do not want to respond here well you have my facebook South, feel free to send me a PM there. thanks for listing to my thoughts, i look forward to hearing yours.Wingman1 07:06, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Wingman. I will check on your edits and see if I can do anything to help. However, before I look in to it, remember that except for minor grammar and spelling, changes should only be made after permission is granted by the original or caretaker editor.
As for Ware Shoals, I clicked on what looked like an open link and ended up on the edit page normally produced when one clicks on a red link! Anyhow, I created the page with a short summary paragraph with an arial shot of the town taken off of Google Earth. I offered it via the proposal process on your behalf. Feel free to develop it, keeping in mind that there was practically no contact before 1991 (I assume there may have been some locals that had come to Fountain Inn, but not much else). If you like, run the ideas by on the talk page of the article first and I can do the editing before you transfer it to the main page. SouthWriter (talk) 17:05, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
i had set it up as a red link not to long ago when i got back to where i was working on this. i am going to go place my notes on the talk page in a min.Wingman1 21:07, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I reverted and edited the Madrid earthquake edit. It is a judgment call on that one. The headings were not necessary but they did not detract from the article either. The problem there was that the number 3 headings should be used to divide number 2 sections. What is there now are two number 2 sections with a single number 3 heading in each. Hopefully they can stay that way now, but if not we can consult Smoggy, the creator of the page. SouthWriter (talk) 17:29, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
i may have droped the ball on that one i should have checked the history more closely. i saw Smoggy's last edit on it in 2009, and did not look past it. i thought it was well abandoned. i sould have known better there.Wingman1 21:18, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
i am going to orginise my notes on the talk page for WS i a going to have to look at Wikipedia and get some of the pre DD history. sad to say a lot of the older folks are no longer with us, so i can't just go ask them. (a lot of those who name i have spoken of before.)Wingman1 21:18, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
South, i put some new note's in the talk page for WS, regarding the pre DD history. do you mind taking a look and tell me what you think?Wingman1 02:34, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
part 2
i have been in a bit of a dry spell lateley so i went to contribite to the wiki on a whole in a effort to find my muse again, onley to have LG not only edit my post on talk-pages, ( Something HE HAS taken ME to task on, i have screen shots to showing.) but to revert my edits no explanation AGAIN. what is his issue with me?Wingman1 (talk) 18:43, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
~self edit~
i may have misunderstood what was done on the 51'st State page but i did take that anon edit and turn it into a good one. And i just don't think it should have just done away with like that. If i make a bad edit i WANT to know why it was bad so i can be better.
i stand by my other statements, though i would like the hear his explanation, and i am willing to admit that i misunderstood that as well as i expect he will claim.Wingman1 (talk) 20:11, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
What Wingman1 did was fix the grammar of an anon's QSS-QAA violation. When Lordganon reverted the anon's edit, he had to revet Wingman1's because Wingman1's was connected through it. Wingman did not fix the anon's violation.
Wingman, the edit should be done away with because the entire thing was unrealistic. If the anon would make an account, he could be messaged about why it is implausible, but the edit itself should be removed because none of it could have been saved. LurkerLordB (Talk) 20:43, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
i am just going to have to agree to disageee here.i had planed on comeing back and expanding on that edit, i guess i should have put (~more to come~) in the section and maybe he know that. But i will not edit that page again i will stick to just to the page i am working on,with South's help, and just move forwardWingman1 (talk) 20:52, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
...Wow.
South, you may as well just ignore all of that. Wing decided to "fix" a edit that was against the rules - and, quite frankly, a nonsense edit irregardless - in the first place, meaning that it had to be removed for the junk to be taken out. And the rest is because I moved a signature to under the correct post.
Okay, you guys. I assume by now that Wingman has read the above and understands Ganon's actions. I hate to get in the middle of things, but I will dash off a note to Wingman before I leave the wiki tonight. And as for changing something on a talk page, I am guilty of adding signatures and even correcting spelling at times. No biggie there. I usually only do it on messages to which I am responding, however. SouthWriter (talk) 02:57, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
yea i got it South, it's all good now.Wingman1 (talk) 10:25, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Republic of Florida
Right, how much of Gainesville was changed? It was just the name correct? I created First Coast aswell with Gainesville, it was just the fact it was called 'North Florida' that it would not be canonized. Overstate the creation of the articles? It was all my idea, and then Arstar told me it was so un-likely and that it would never work! So I gave up, and just a few months later Astar created a unified Florida with no problem or opposition.
"Me and GOPZACK made a page called "Republic of South Florida" a while back. Perryz has written something related to this on my talk page. Something about the unification of ALL of Florida. I don't know, check it out and see for yourself. Arstarpool 20:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)" This is when I told them about the idea of an unified Florida
"I think we are putting too many eggs in one basket here. We were already pushing in when GOPZACK and I made the "Republic of South Florida". Perryz, you have already stated on this talk page and my own that you would like Florida "to unite". I have said this to you before, but it takes years for these things to happen. I know where you are coming from, because when I first just a couple months back I wanted the PUSA to reclaim all of the west and start going into the east, but eventually I saw that things like that cant happen, at least not quickly. While I like the idea, it is completely IMPOSSIBLE for Florida to unite as you said. Maybe this Republic should just be a city state that took up the territory of a former county, or maybe a coastal city-state, but not the whole damn northern half of the state. Arstarpool 02:37, April 9, 2010 (UTC)" This is were they told me it was impossible
"I was given authority of the article from Perryz, who originally created the article. He has apparently left the Wiki because Indiana was not canonized. I will mark it as OBSOLETE, but should he return and show interest in it I will restore it as a proposal. My logic behind this is that it has outlived its usefulness of "reuniting" Florida. Arstarpool04:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)" Again he tells me its impossible and goes on to turn it obsolete.
Reactivates North Florida => Gainesville and canonizes it with almost no work to it
20:40, 6 August 2010 Arstarpool (Talk | contribs) (168 bytes) (Created page with " The Republic of Florida is a nation that is still in the making after the unification.") This is were they lied and created the unified Florida
WS page
did some work on the Ware Shoals page.Wingman1 05:55, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
make any changes you think is needed.Wingman1 05:56, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
just wanted to say thank you for the help, i am going to be doing some more work on the page next week.Wingman1 (talk) 01:03, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
Catching Up
Hey South, how has it been? I'm trying to get back into the loop of the Wiki (and, of course, 1983DD) but I'm discovering that there is not much besides the map games nowadays.
Anyways, i had a few things I wanted To talk about, the first of which being the statehod of Dakota, which we were talking about a few months ago. While on the Dakota talk page you speak of this having already happened, I think we shold try to get it in "imk" on the United States page itself. I also want to talk about the (eventual) statehood of the California Republic and if it is something that can be achieved in the short term.
I also want to talk to you about the Republic of Florida article and the claims Sunkist is laying to it. I am only now reading into it, but I can agree to his idea of adding Ocala into the fray. I am still confused on why he would want to dissolve the state governments and make a "National Government of Florida" (which would already exist as the three "countries" already unified) but I'll try talking to him tommorow and seeing what we can agree on. Arstar 03:58, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, mostly map games. I miss the fresh ideas of some of the guys, but I guess playing games is a lot more fun than arguing "plausibility" with Ganon. The most activity I have had on 1983DD lately is editing fellow South Carolinian Wingman1 as he tries to do something with his hometown.
With the Dakotas, I am not sure how to work those states back into the loop. The survivors would not stay "independent" forever since they have little in the way of resources. I figure writing them in as having been added already would fit so much easier. The California Republic and Florida both could join now that radio communication is common. The same thing goes for the USAR (Virgin Islands).
I am glad to see that you and Sunkist are working together. I too think some of his ideas might work, but jumping in and claiming the state is no the way the collaborative project works. Ocala would have been at the crossroads of all three states, so it makes sense that the city would be incorporated in the unified entity. The same goes for Appalachia (adopted by myself from Yank).
The fact is, I don't have a whole lot of time to work on the wiki myself. However, I am the only "brass" anywhere near as interested in the project as Ganon, so I have to check in every day or two. Now that you are back for a while, I hope you stay in touch. SouthWriter (talk) 00:03, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
South I was wondering if I could help you finish a couple of your pending proposals, since I am done with making new pages and have a bit of free time for the next 2 weeks. I had a discussion with LG regarding the legnthy list of proposals and the sluggish pace at which they graduate. One of the pages I am referring to is Jamaica, which given my previous work on the USAR I was thinking I could add a bit regarding their relation. Arstartalk 20:03, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
Go for it. I'm taking it that you like the connection I wrote in with the USAR. It made a lot of since, so I went with it. You are welcome to work with what I have done with the USAR as well. By now the USAR is very close (if not completely) a state in the USA. I forget what I wrote on that so far. SouthWriter (talk) 21:48, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that rather than statehood, the government at Charlotte Amielle would act with the authority of Torrington for any of the East Coast countries that wish to re-enter the Union. Florida is #1 on my list and I have briefly considered Louisiana and maybe your own Neonotia. The main reason I suggest this is that at the present the Us and USAR are both in two very different political unions using two different currencies. It would be hard for the USAR to use the Buffalo Dollar without disrupting its place in the ECF economy. When the time comes that reunification is possible (for example the Mainland US having access to the sea or a land border) the USAR will dissolve and become the State of the American Virgin Islands.
This is just an suggestion, and if you still want to go ahead with statehood I am still fine with that idea. However we do need to discuss the complicated situation regarding how much freedom the USAR really has within the ECF and the economic and political effects of it leaving. Arstartalk 23:40, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
So, what is your opinion on the matter above? Arstartalk 17:08, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty well set on statehood. The only reason for not going that route is distance and communication. The US of OTL has Hawaii and the Pacific territories, so I see no reason why the Virgin Islands should be any different in TTL. The currency issue is nothing serious, for both the $EC and the $NA ("buffalo") dollar are based on the same standard (the original US dollar). The NAU article specifically states that the currency of member states is honored. Nothing has been said about the federal government's laws concerning currency standards (except that barter is still widely honored).
I am on record as not accepting the "no access to the sea" argument, so reunification can go ahead as planned as long as the editors of the articles agree (in my opinion anyway). The political unions are not a problem if the governing bodies of those unions do not object. I see no reason why Provisional Canada or any of the American member nations would object to the addition of new states. As for the ECF, it has agreed to the autonomy of the USAR with the understanding that it has represented a sovereign nation since soon after Doomsday. It is an American flag that flies in its realm.
I understand the sensitive area of a continuing American presense among ECF dependent territories. However, the American presense there most likely is what keeps it strong. With little or no contact with New Britain, contact with the US would just be a great boost to the economy. I don't see how statehood would affect the bond that has been formed in the region. The allegiance of the American remnant, especially on islands they control, is to the original nation that is now revealed to have been revived in part. I am not sure about the numbers, but I am sure a significant number of American expats living in the Caribbean would move if the ECF government began to discriminate against them in any way.
Long story made short: the USAR is part of the "continuing US" as much as the APA was. Their existence, per canon, predates the formation of the ECF by a few months (though independece came in 1989). With the USA renewed on the continent, there is no logical reason that the reunion should not occur. SouthWriter (talk) 20:08, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
Alright. So do you have a timeline for when this reunification will occur?
And should Navassa become its own state/territory or should it stay as part of the Virgin Islands. And what of Florida?
By the way I asked Oer whether or not Oregon is suitable for rejoining the US. If he agrees to let it join it will be easier for the US to maintain in contact with the USVI having access to the sea and all. But try to get back withme on that timetable for statehood. Arstartalk 02:30, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
No problem, Henry. I just happened to catch him in the act. --XterrorX (talk) 12:22, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
Blog
Good to have some confirmation, maybe, if people keep posting "this should be deleted" in the comments, you could post there to tell them it won't? LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:12, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
I'm one of those "first timers" here so i have a question to ask. How do u create those maps with different borders? How do u edit the maps? Thank u for ur time sir.
I'm not really sure where to put this, but a new user called Limeuan recently edited the Philipines article in both 83DD and Asia for the Asiatics, the former being created by Xi'reney and the latter by him, but in a closed TL. He also made an edit to the 83DD main page about Philipine's reaction to the White Death in Essex.
He isn't a troll, just a new editor who was unaware of the rules, so I wasn't sure where to put this.
Was keeping an eye out earlier while I was hunting around for another guy for you to use for the head of this organization.
Found one!
Current Governor of Montana Brian Schweitzer, Democrat, was in Saudi Arabia in 1983 working on irrigation projects. Man's got a rep for being quite the speaker.
Thanks, Ganon. I see he had married before going to Saudi Arabia. Given that with the escalation of problems in the area after DD, I think it will be easy to get him to the ANZC in time to build a resume so we can insert him into the mix. Instead of ending up in the USAR, though, I think we may be able to work him into returning to Montana. From there he'll make an excellent presidential candidate. With his charisma he will have an advantage over the other Democrats. He is somewhat conservative, so he will even have a chance in the general election. SouthWriter (talk) 02:34, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Thought you'd like that.
Yeah, wouldn't make much sense for him to go to the UASR. Shuttling him off to Montana makes a lot more sense.
Glad you think he's good - the only ones even remotely close I could find were otl state reps attending the University of Gainesville, lol. Not good, at all.
On the same note, looking around for info on congressmen, etc., noticed something about the revised constitution. And seeing as you wrote it.....
The new passage reads:
"Each State shall by popular vote in the congressional districts on secret ballots determine by majority vote the appointment of each district's choice for both offices."
The old one, of course, talking about the electoral college.
Basically, I'm wondering what the intent of it was.
Really seems, at least to me, like it is removing all reference to the electoral votes, but in many ways they still exist - more so, however, like the otl Nebraska and Maine models for how votes are used than the current overall model.
Would that be what you were referring to? Probably would be more realistic than anything else.
Either way, I suppose, it probably needs a slight rewording. Rather contradictory right now.
I'm sorry I did not answer earlier. I have been on vacation. Right now this is being written because I awoke in the middle of the night and could not get back to sleep. Anyway, the idea of eliminating the electoral college altogether flew in the face of the reason it was created in the first place - the disenfranchisement of small states due to their population. This is a compromise. The actual "electors" are replaced by popular vote and a state's districts end up allowing a dividing of the state's votes which is usually not followed in electoral college votes.SouthWriter (talk) 07:27, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
No worries, South.
So basically the Maine/Nebraska model, without the actual electors, and just using the numbers in a more abstract sense? Sounds very good, actually.
Call this a bit of a reminder of the last post, and a question - how was your trip, and where'd ya go? ;) Lordganon (talk) 03:52, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. The trip went well. It started last Wednesday (the 22nd) with two days at a lodge on a lake near where I lived after I moved as a child from the "ancestral home" in the Florida pan handle. I would live in various towns in South-west Georgia until I moved to Greenville in 1977. Anyway, after that my wife and I toured the homes I lived in before ending up on Friday evening at the homestead near Albany. We celebrated my mom's 80th birthday on Sunday and left on Tuesday, her actual birthday.
I am torn between working on the 1983DD articles and a renewed effort to build up the Two Americas time line that Nuke has handed over to me (his only collaborator). I guess I do need to write in something about Schweitzer though. I have very little to work on, but I suppose his degree in international agronomy would come in handy in the agricultural industry in Australia.
As for the wording of the constitution, what part needs tweaking to be clearer? What I was trying to convey is an empowering districts to be heard in an election still in the states' hands. The nation still wants the president to be of the whole nation, not just the cities. The popular vote still more or less wins, as in our time line, but this way it is a collection of popular votes equal to the House districts only (removing the equalizer of 2 votes based on the senators). Run any changes by me on the Constitution Talk page, but feel free to make the changes after I get a chance to see them. --SouthWriter (talk) 19:27, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
Glad the trip went well.
Bet his knowledge of irrigation systems - most of why he was in Saudi Arabia - would be of more use.
Well, the term "electors" is still used a lot. The section about who picks the VP in event of a tie has been crossed out, leaving no way of necessarily deciding that role in that event. Overall, it also doesn't say how the winner is really decided, either - while it says how votes are counted (by district), it doesn't say (though it's obvious) how the winner is necessarily determined. The more abstract sense of the numbers isn't really mentioned, either.
Removing the senators from the equation makes it worse. Looking around at the work some people have done on the subject, only the 1976 US presidential election ends up being worse if you have them included (puts Carter and Ford at an electoral draw). 1960, however, is worse either way - going by district, given the percentages JFK won some districts by, gives the election to Nixon by a fair margin, and it doesn't matter if senator electoral votes are factored in or not. Testament to exactly how close that one was. The reason, overall, for that is that usually, the winner of the election also wins the most states - was not true in 1960 or 1976. Ties in the number of states happened in 1880 and 1848. The screw-up that was 1824 meant that person who won the most states lost then, too. But in all other cases the winner won a majority of states - so the senator part will only really help confirm the victory.
Anyhoo, using some guesswork on my part, removing the senatorial aspect likely sends 1948, 1912, 1876, 1860 to the house, if not reversing the outcomes, if you go by districts. 1824 gets more screwy (though, may give Jackson an outright win, lol - never know). 1880 and 1844 may get major adjustments, too. Bet on smaller victories, at best, in 1856 and 1864 too. Guesswork here, mind.
Basically, there's big potential for any close election, not adding the senator numbers, to have a very different outcome. Still some room for that leaving the senator numbers in, but overall it's an improvement over the otl troubles. Most elections would end up being more accurate. And it's fairer to the little states, besides.
And, funny enough, the close 2000 election? Had they been running a district system, it'd have been nowhere close - Bush would have won easily, without any problems.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the senator portion should be included.
I'll post this and some potential fixes to the Constitution talk page.
Hey South. I was wondering what your thought was of the Hurricane issue regarding the US Virgin Islands. Head over to the Atlantic Remnant talk page and tell me what you think we should do.
Ironically I might be losing power tommorow since Hurricane/Tropical Storm Isaac is due to be right by my house so I won't be editing in a few days if that does happen. Arstartalk 01:57, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
The last time we tried to include a hurricane it didn't get very far in the news feed, as it were. The reason is because the changed weather patterns due to nuclear summer threw off the predictability of such events. We can assume that they would continue, and that their intensity would be greater, but not that they would occur at the same exact times as they do in OTL. However, for simplicity they have been usually assumed unless someone wants to bring in an event to enhance a storyline. Well, stay dry, Arstar; and stay safe. SouthWriter (talk) 07:33, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Two Americas question
Greetings South, how have you been? I was just informed that the Two Americas timeline is being talked about on the AH forum. Not that it bothers me, but it has made me think about the timeline and how much I continue to ignore it. My only interest in it was making and finalizing how the CSA would look on a map. While you were highly detailed on many of the people and events of the timeline (especially Robert E. Lee).
I have been considering whether or not to ask you this for a long time now (so do not believe this is a spur of the moment thing). Would you be interested in adopting the timeline from me? I strongly believe you would be able to go further without me handicapping you on random details. You can do as you wish, even get rid of pointless stuff (if you see fit). Sorry for bringing this up so fast, but it has been on my mind too long now. If you are not interested, I understand.
Either way, hope you have been doing okay. TTFN. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:01, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
Sure, Nuke, I'll adopt it. I will create a page for both countries as they are today. I think making the biographies is the most interesting part of the process. I just take your premise, determine what would have become of famous people, and in the process create the alternate history around them (sort of like the "alternate destinies" in Napolean's World). As for wat they are saying about us at AH.com, They have no idea how hard we try to keep things plausible! Fedelede tried to defend us, though.
BTW, I will be changing some things. Thanks for the permission in advance. SouthWriter (talk) 01:02, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I am glad that you like the idea. I know you will make the timeline into a masterpiece. I will continue to watch, and I can't wait to see how it will all turn out. If you need any help, I will always be there for you. Otherwise, have fun with it. I will make a note about this on the main talk page. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to write you again, but I just wanted to say that you are really good at writing biographies. I remember reading Huey Long's and Robert E. Lee's a while back and I loved them, but I decided to just take a second look at the others you have done. I am really impressed. I guess you can call this a flaw of mine (I am more of a map maker). Anyway, sorry to bother you again, just had to say something. ^_^ --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:44, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your compliments. I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow (traveling home as I'm on vacation right now.) I look forward to developing the time line despite the opinions of many alternate historians that the very thought of the South existing separately is "implausible." Well, have a great evening. --SouthWriter (talk) 01:53, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Blue Ridge and Me
Hey South. Okay, I ususally don't do plan on any major moves without advice or consultation from other members of the Doomsday family. I actually live in California - it sucks - but I have family in the area. Enclavehunter (talk) 02:04, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Plus I have been interested in the Carolinas for some time. Enclavehunter (talk) 02:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Conflicts (CNS)
Hi South!!! Long time! How are you???? I hope fine. I wrote to you, for know your opinion about some international conflicts -related to the US- in my spanish TL Chile No Socialista. I hope don't mind you jeje
As i told you before, in 1978-1980 take place the South American War, which the President Reagan support to the chilean government (in fact, he has been helping to the country since the failed socialist revolution in 1977). But also, by this time, there is other international events like the Iranian Revolution, which i assume take place in the same way like OTL. After read about it, i think that a early Reagan administration can't change the situation of the Shah after, what you think? Is possible some other change?
Also, I was thinking in Central America, specifically, the Nicaraguan Revolution and Salvadoran Civil War... perhaps here could happen some changes with Reagan. I don't know... What you think about this? Anyway, thanks very much for yor attention. Regards! --Katholico (talk) 01:58, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
The Shah ended up in Egypt after having left the USA and then Panama. He was out of the country by the time that Reagan became president. Therefore, I don't think conflict elsewhere would change that. In Central America the Reagan administration supported the Contra rebellion secretly with funds from secret arms sells to Iran. This would most likely still have occurred. --SouthWriter (talk) 20:55, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
LOL I hadn't realized that you already answered me... until today O_O haha I forgot that you usually also write in your own discussion page xD But, anyway... thanks you for your opinions :) So, the Iranian Revolution would be the same that OTL. In Central America, i was thinking that the situation in Nicaragua could lead to a major civil war if Somoza regime continues being supported, now by the Reagan administration (instead just Somoza resign in 1979). What you think? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 04:03, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
My inclination would be that Samoza would not have survived until Reagan was elected. The Contras were trained under the Carter Administration in an attempt to return the government back to the rightful government in Nicaragua. Samoza resigned and fled because he was on the verge of defeat. If you can extend your time line's influence into Central America so as to strengthen the Samoza regime, then perhaps there could be some success against the Sandinistas. Supporting dictators and strong men in the anti-communist campaigns was not unusual. I am not saying it was always wise, but the "best of two evils" applies in most of these cases. SouthWriter (talk) 04:20, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then i will follow this direction about Nicaragua. Thanks again :) Regards! --Katholico (talk) 03:47, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
Remington Firearms and Blue Ridge
Hey South. I've been wondering about this for sometime. What if Blue Ridge, during their scouting missions, arrived in what is or was Madison, NC and discover Remington Firearms - Remington is headquartered in Madison. I'm not talking about the actual headquarters still standing, and even so, something within, but would it be possible for Remington Firearms be restarted in Blue Ridge, and begin producing firearms in small amounts. It's just a thought. Enclavehunter (talk) 04:31, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
From what I can tell so far there was no manufacturing of firearms in Madison. If you can find evidence that such is or was the case in the 1980's, then I see no reason why its supplies could not be used to begin manufacture of firearms in Blue Ridge. However, corporate headquarters does not mean firearms or ammo were even stored there. The firearms plant was in Illion, NY, in 1983: while ammunition is made in Lonoke, AR. SouthWriter (talk) 21:06, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
What I mean, is that they take the company name, but restart it in Blue Ridge. It would be called Remington Firearms, but everything would be started in the actual country, and not salvage nothing. On another note, I was thinking about Blue Ridge to begin resettling the eastern portions of the former states that are not irradiated or controlled by another nation. What's your opinion? Enclavehunter (talk) 17:52, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, even if no manufacturing went on there - we can likely safely assume that there was none - the general plans for their products could feasibly be at their headquarters. Lordganon (talk) 04:58, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
RE: Nomination for brass
I appreicate the offer, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to commit to it. Zack 19:58, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
hey South
you still around? i haven't heard from you in a weeks. everything ok?
Sure, things are going fine. I was on vacation for a week, then I've been trying to spend more time with my wife. I'm trying to get back into the wiki, but I've got other things that keep getting in the way.
Thanks for checking up on me, though. I hope things are going well with you as well. SouthWriter (talk) 02:24, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
well that's good to hear. uou looked at the WS page lately?Wingman1 (talk) 01:17, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
I looked it over. It is not quite what I envisioned when I wrote about finding fiefdoms there, but I am open to changing some of what I originally wrote. I did not anticipate a local reader becoming involved so I created the scenario along with ones for Greenwood and points along the Pacolet River east of Spartanburg. Your hard work does not deserve to be held back by my original creation. What I suggest, though is to work hard on making the disconnect with what was going on in Greenville, et al, and Anderson, very clear. I mean by this that there has to be believable reasons why contact was not made for almost eight years. --SouthWriter (talk) 03:53, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind praise. (i am not above haveing something changed if you don't agree with it. lol!)
how about a border skirmish right in the first year or two that the locals blame rightly or wrongly on people from "up north" maybe a skirmish with forces from Anderson?
I would ask this of you sence i am trying to connect WS to your work, i a not good at all at writing up battle sceens, i think i could do an aftermath better than the actual battle. if you get the time could you maybe use part
Possable Battle sites in red.
of one of the groups you created and give WS some s**t, lol. i was thinking maybe a small battle right here in that aera would be a good spot for it. i could drop in some names for local victims and and add some details. i am not rushing this project in any way, and if you dissagree with the battle idea, i am thinking that something would have to "scare" them into isotlation for that amount of time.Wingman1 (talk) 10:44, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
(p.s, i am going to copy this section to the WS talk page, ya can delite this one here if you want to.)Wingman1 (talk) 10:44, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Cinco De Mayo Confederate Presidents
Hey South, hope everythings going well.
I started an AH a while back that I want to revisit called Cinco De Mayo - basic premise is that the French win the battle of Puebla instead of the Mexicans and as a result create a proxy Mexican state from which they can influence the American Civil War. In this TL, the Confederacy survives into present day. I've put together a list of Confederate Presidents (seen here) but I don't know enough about prominent Southern politicians to completely fill it out. Anyone you would suggest I add/remove/change?
The best I can do for you is show you the list I have already compiled for the Two Americas time line (which I have adopted from Nuke). It can be found here. Nuke had some names, but I mostly filled it out the CSA on my own. I may make some changes to the time line, but right now the list I prepared represents surviving CS generals up to about 1890. After that, I looked at US election results for southern born candidates and went from there.
The only choice you may have missed on was Robert Byrd, since he was from West Virginia. However, I am not familiar with the Cinco de Mayo timeline, so I don't know the fate of W. Virginia as a state after a CSA victory as told from that perspective. You are welcome to use any of my choices (I see where you agreed with me quite a bit in the 20th century). if you like.
Two things that got my attention, George Wallace's assassination (same year, different date of the attempt in our time line), and Bill Clinton's retaining his birth name. I assume that the assassination was not the same as in our time line, but I wonder if Virginia Blythe did not marry after William Blythe (serial womanizer!) died or if Bill for some reason chose not to change his surname (himself not sure why he did it in the first place). I wonder, though if he would have really wanted to keep the Blythe name if he ever learned about his birth dad's history! SouthWriter (talk) 19:50, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! You're right, Byrd is West Virginian. I'll have to fix that.
About Bill Blythe/Clinton: in looking up his father's history, I noticed that he had moved to Chicago and died traveling back to visit his pregnant fourth wife Virginia (apparently to look for a new home in Arkansas). This move would not have happened, so the seniour Blythe probably would have lived to see his son be born. Given his history in our time line, I wonder if he would have stayed married to her long, but he may have grown a little by then (he was 29 when he died). Given all this, would Bill have had the influences that shaped him into presidential material?
He was a mediator between his abusive step-father Roger Clinton, and then met John Kennedy and heard Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech (both in 1963). He probably would not have met Kennedy (or Rockefeller) as a Confederate. King may have been a factor in the south, but I don't know where you want to go with that. The "butterfly" spreads wide wings with the war taking a different turn! I wrote an stub article for Blythe/Clinton for the Two America's time line, though I did not vet him too well (his and others were an attempt to build a story, though I had an eye towards some sort of plausibility). I made him much the same man, without Hillary (marrying him to Elizabeth Anania (OTL = Elizabeth Edwards!). I hope that hasn't messed you up too much. I may or may not change my story on him based on this further study. SouthWriter (talk) 02:59, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he didn't meet Kennedy, but he met LBJ? You bring up some good points though. I'll find him a different wife since Elizabeth Edwards was your idea for your own TL, though that is pretty creative!
I'm not quite sure what I want to do with segregation in the CS, to be honest. Treading carefully here, my understanding about post-Civil War white supremacy is that it was born out of anger and the socialogical scars of Reconstruction (something they teach in public school in Seattle, interestingly enough). I'm not sure if this is actually why segregation occurred or if people in the late 19th century were simply racist (plenty of Northerners, including Abe Lincoln, were certainly racist themselves when it came to rights beyond the ending of slavery). What do you think?
Yeah, I guess you could get him to meet LBJ, though the man did not have the charisma (in OTL anyway) that JFK (oddly absent in your list, though I know his father was in the list) had. As for Clinton's wife, I didn't feel sorry for Jon Edwards by taking her from him. :-)
As for segregation in the CS, I'm pretty sure it would be very evident simply because that is the way many people prefer it even in the modern day. Black families were strong, living in their own communities much as the Irish, Italians, and others were. Integration into society was a good thing, but not for everyone. In the south, at least, self-segregation remains the norm in some places. Small towns and cities like where I live are pretty well integrated everywhere but in most churches! I have black families living on both sides of me (i'm white) and Hispanics in front and behind me.
In the ATL, though, segregation would be the rule, perhaps even to the present day. I am not sure if the civil rights movement would be "on track" in the 1950's and 60's either. No Reconstruction, though, may have meant better relations between ethnic groups after international pressure (and changing economic climate) changed. As "king cotton" weakened, and France, at least, invested in the infrastructure of the CS, workers would be needed with black laborers probably being the cheapest. This would build into racial strife as poor whites had a hard time getting some of these jobs, though prejudice or racism among bosses would play apart in the "better" jobs.
Well, enough for now. It's late here. SouthWriter (talk) 04:14, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
Greenland
Since you'd not gotten the hint about the rule violations, I now have to leave this note.
The article came under review, and the community agreed that it needed to be changed, along with how exactly to change it. Following that, objections were asked, none were given, and the changes were instituted, as per the rules and the review process. The only "problem" was that it was on there longer than the mandated month before it was fixed.
In no location does it say who has to change the article, that you "need to leave a note" on the author's page, or anything of the sort.
No objections were raised, and after more than an appropriate amount of time, the article was changed as per the community review.Another asking for objections was then made.
And a bit more than a week after that, the review ended.
Not a single thing wrong. Not one.
Yet, what you are doing, South, is in every way a violation of the rules.
Ganon, it is a fact that you failed to follow the the guidelines by failing to post a notice first on the talk page of the article itself. I quote from the template:
"[T]here is debate about whether this article conflicts with older canon or is to improbable to remain as is. See the Talk Page for more details." (emphasis added).
I noted this when I put the article (in Fx's version) back up for review, but I notice that you removed my remarks when you re-archived the discussion. That, in itself is a violation of the intent of the archives, as was pointed out to me when I tried to preserve the essense of a discussion without the inclusion of some content.
When you chose to "fix" the article to meet your proposed changes, you chose to bypass the "Obsolete" phase of the guidelines. The fact that it was returned to canon in a timely manner is commendable, though many reviews went far past that due to unresolved issues. I myself ended up making changes to some of those articles, so I know how the process works. In most cases, the article's caretaker had a say in the process.
Yes, there is nothing in the guidelines about contacting the caretaker, but when we discussing the review of Zack's Arkansas article in April of 2011, I pointed out that Zack needed to be contacted and you personally agreed to do just that. Why would not Fx be given the same courtesy?
Greenland was first proposed in November of 2010, and added to the Proposal list on December 15th. It was graduated as a stub on February 11, 2011, with no discussion. In this case, Fx had forgotten to add it to the proposal page himself. The stub template, though, is clear:
"[I]ts creator or creators have more work to do before it can be complete. You are welcome to give suggestions at the Talk Page." (emphasis added)
One editor tried to make changes in August of 2011, at that time these were reverted with a polite note on the talk page reminding the editor of this procedure. The present changes "skipped" this procedure, moving directly to the "review" process without a notice on the talk page. When the changes were made, they was no notice on the talk page of this.
Recently you posted to the United States Page your concerns about changes that needed to be made without any of the "Review" process having to take place. Why was this not done here? I do not want to think you had anything against Fx; however, that you decided to do the Review was quite irregular.
This is notice to you that I am now going to put your version of the Greenland article up for review. This is not for any "implausiblity," but rather so the community can reconsider what has come to pass here. I am going to write the other Brass a note to the effect that this is being done in hope's that a true community decision can be made. SouthWriter (talk) 21:30, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Oh for chrissake....
No. I followed the guideline to the letter. Something which you failed to donumerous times.
If you'd bother to remember, you wanted Zack told about it, and I agreed to do it. Note the difference?
The "stub" template is irrelevant to this case.
The community agreed to a needed fix. After two months of waiting, one was instituted. As per therulesthat you refused to follow.
No notices on the talk page or to Fx were required, necessary, or even a matter of "courtesy." That is what the "review" noticeitself is for.
My concerns on the USA page are part of a ongoing discussion between the two of us. Something that is vastly different.
"Irregular?" Not in the least. That is what you did. Entirely.
"True community decision?" It was brought before the group. It was given far more than the time limit. It was posted on the main DD page itself. And it was commented on and discussed by several people.
Your claim that it was "not a true community decision" is entirely unfounded and without any truth whatsoever.
Your disregard for the rules of the review process, and indeed, this wiki, are appalling.
i got a blog i would like to have delited. it all ready taged, could you take care of it for me? thanks in advance.Wingman1 01:06, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see that a writer/editor you were following has passed away. I deleted the blog as you asked. SouthWriter (talk) 02:09, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, for the delite.
yea i know what you mean, he was quite well thought of on Althistory.Com some of his stories were some of the most popular on that site. if you are intersted i will post you a link to his profile on there.Wingman1 10:22, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
On Bugging Out
Hey South! I'd definitely be interested in having a look and hopefully contributing to this new wiki of yours, do you have a link I can follow to get to it? I would certainly be interested in taking part - assuming it's a more humble and compromising environment, of course! :L Feg (talk) 21:07, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
Oops, just realised you already posted a link - I'm there, and it looks... well, it looks like a blank slate. I'll get round to doing those articles as soon as I have a gap in my homework schedule! Feg (talk) 21:12, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
Huckabee's VP
Hi South, how are you? I hope fine :) Remember my timeline Chile No Socialista? Well, Mike Huckabee is the current US President there since 2009 (as you suggested), but i have a doubt about his possible vicepresident. Looking other TLs and the OTL primaries, the options that i saw are:
Sarah Palin
Tim Pawlenty
Newt Gingrich
What you think? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 05:54, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what your point of divergence is in the time line. Knowing Mike Huckabee, though, I think he would have chosen Tim Pawlenty over Newt Gingrich. Sarah Palin was a wild card played by McCain in OTL.. I liked both Huckabee and Palin, but Palin was from far away Alaska and later interactions in 2010 show that there was "bad blood" between the two of them. Pawlenty was governor of Minnesota, a liberal state, and therefore would have given the ticket some balance in a national election. SouthWriter (talk) 20:33, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Then Pawlenty looks like an good option for be VP :) Thanks very much South! Regards --Katholico (talk) 03:57, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for giving the suggestions and clarifying the things about ASB for me!
Is there a clear difference between PODs and events simply listed as "Random"? Because PODs are essentially events that might've happened but did not occur in OTL.
It is a bit of a gray area. PODs are usually based on human decisions, or at least slight differences in the consequences of situations. To introduce a lightning strike, for instance, is to not so much a divergence as an alternate reality. When that happens, some can call the resulting time line implausible or even ASB. I did not take part in the discussion that fundamentally redefined ASB on this wiki, so I cannot speak for the community on that. The administrator that first formulated the policy wanted to cut out its use as an editorial statement. He was overriden by a compromise that brought about the present situation.
Basically, then, a POD can be considered ASB if something happened that did not happen in real life. Ususally this is not the case, but it can happen. The ASB - Biased category is especially tricky, though, because it re-introduces the subjective editorial statement that raised an issue in the first place. ASB - Random is perhaps even worse. However, I cannot step in against another administrator on such a matter.
I hope that is as "clear as mud." By the way, welcome to the wiki. SouthWriter (talk) 04:08, November 13, 2012 (UTC)
Hey South. I was wondering, how do you know so much about the background of people? I saw the conversations about Sarah Palin and Barack Obama for Chris's No Napoleon, and I'm suprise and curious on how you know so much about them. Sorry if it sounds weird or creepy. But how? Enclavehunter (talk) 21:34, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
Basically, I look them up on Wikipedia. In some cases I have to look further (like campaign websites, etc.) using search engines. I don't always do as well. I introduced Sarah Palin to Idaho politics in the US of 1983DD, for instance, but then preceded to miss most of the 2010 candidates in that election cycle. I picked up on someone's suggestion about John F. Kennedy, Jr. (also 1983DD), only to have to retract when definitive information came out. Wikipedia is not always the best source because it is a work of amateurs. Or you could just say I have way too much time on my hands. --SouthWriter (talk) 22:20, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
Re:Long Island
Thank you for commenting your concerns, and that I would agree that "vandalism" isn't the correct term, but in a way he did "vandalize" the page. I am the caretaker for that page, and I have not given him any permission to edit or add upon it. I would hardly call his edits "minor." I have already written to him about this. If I have done something wrong, I do apologize. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:37, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you have told him about your concerns, no harm was done one way or the other. However, to change wording slightly to clarify a sentence seems "minor" to me. But then again, it's not "my" article. Two edits, though, should not be considered "excessive." The second edit looks like just "trying to help" on Salnax's part. Since the dollar is used in the Outer Lands and barter can be assumed just about anywhere even 29 years after DD.
The nature of these articles, many or most of them just "sitting there," is that they are open to minor edits such as these by new users. It takes a while for new editors to get to know what changes will be allowed to articles. Some articles even ASK for help in editing (usually with accompanying templates, though). Even changes to the main page of a time line get accepted by many admins based on what we consider "minor" changes that do not alter the nature of the article.
I've lost count on the number of times users "change" things only to leave them the same (apparently to gain "points"). I've scolded some extreme examples of this, but usually I just let them go. I'm just glad to see that time lines are getting some attention. SouthWriter (talk) 19:04, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I absolutely have nothing against minor edits and copy editing. What I am against, however, are edits which constitutes someone adding information which may be going against what I am seeing for the articles I am caretaking. I understand his intentions were nothing but positive, but I still constitute this as a form of vandalism. But in the end, what's done is done. I have reverted some of his edits (primarily the copy editing he did). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:28, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
So, what is the direction you have for Long Island? I concur with your right to revert anything on an article for which you are a caretaker. I just did not want us to scare off a new editor. His main work seems impressive (obviously following an interest of his). --SouthWriter (talk) 03:13, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
Re:The welcome message
Hello again. I believe the way the message is added has changed, now just a single template (not just the message being added over and over again). I removed the flag files in question because they are duplicates. I initially intended to go and add the new template to all the userpages, until I realized there were over 500 pages that would have been need to be changed. I have added the template for your page. I also do not appreciate you reuploading those files. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:54, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
I am glad that it got resolved. As for the "blank user," I have no idea about that. Just to add, do you know of a user who has a bot? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:05, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
Your displeasure is noted. I am sorry I went ahead and attempted to undo your mistake. BTW, it was a "restore," not an upload (deletion does not remove material, it just hides it). Unfortunately, your removing the old and putting up the new removed the "personal" touch that introduced me to one of the leading admins (I don't remember who) back in 2009. Or at least I think it did. Silly me, I don't remember if the glitch that produces the () instead of a name was there all along! :-(
Also, I noticed with the old New Spain flag there were a bunch of articles that used that file. How many files did you delete anyway? Just the ones on the old template? I appreciate your diligence in this, but care must be taken (as I'm sure you are aware), lest we create unanticipated dead links.
I bid you a good evening. And if we do not correspond again before then -- Merry Christmas. SouthWriter (talk) 04:16, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
"Mistake?"
I have been attempting to clean up the site by deleting duplicated and outdated files. As for missing some links... whoops. Accidents happen. I have corrected those links. As for the "care", you need to understand that I have been doing the best I can here. As I mentioned before, I went ahead and manually replaced the old "welcome wording" with this new template (which is what I have been doing with all these files). But when I got to around 100, I realized that I would have to manually change over 1000 userpages before I am done. I came to the conclusion that most of the pages are for one time user (who are not coming back), and those who make a deal about it can easily change to the new template (as you have requested). But if you believe this is a bigger problem, then I do apologize. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:29, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
Again, Nuke, no offense meant. I didn't realize you had done so many! Thanks again for your diligence. Most of us have totally forgot those messages anyway. You put yours in your archives -- I never thought to do that. It looks like I'm about ready for an archiving again. Anyway, keep up the good work. --SouthWriter (talk) 05:34, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
Sin Destino
Hi South! How are you? I can ask your opinion for a TL from a friend? Is the spanish version of No Destiny, where the US fight alone for his independence and the war extend for ten years. Only in 1786 Britain recognize the independence of the United States, but the treaty established that the country cannot intervene in foreign conflicts, which eventually lead to a politic of neutrality of US, and don't expand to the west and other parts. Well, this is basically. He also began to write an list of presidents, but need opinions. Can you help please with some thoughts? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 02:07, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
Hola! The first thing to consider is what would have become of the people without the wars. This is especially true about some of the soldiers that became early presidents. I assume there would be border disputes with Mexico, but not to the extent of adding much of the disputed land. Mexico would probably not be interested in invading, so any disputes would be minor. Would the states work well together in time of peace, or would civil war arise as it did in OTL? Without expansion, there would not be any dispute over which new states had slaves, so a status quo would be maintained in Congress.
For the sake of simplicity, let's say that the American Civil War happens, but is shorter due to economic concerns (no California gold, for instance). Some generals and others would survive to have children that may become president some day. But all in all, just take the list from OTL and trim out anyone made famous by military exploits (Mexican War, Spanish-American War, etc.). Anyone born outside of the boundaries of the US of TTL will have to be eliminated, or at least relocated based on their ancestors' east coast homes.
It is an interesting Time Line idea which I am surprised has not taken off. Good luck on building it up. SouthWriter (talk) 03:12, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advices, he said :) For the TL he planned that make Louisiana independent from France in some point (what you think?). Also, there will be a short civil war in the US. Regards! --Katholico (talk) 02:10, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how an independent Louisiana works out. However, with Spain holding the land during the US and French Revolutions, and the US being held by treaty by a more powerful British Empire to lands in the east, the land may never have been turned back over to the French. Local populations near the mouth of the Mississippi might be able to rebel (taking advantage of war in Europe and America). This new nation would be weak, and face much opposition from the Spanish and then the Mexicans.
With the treaty holding the Americans back, annexation would be out of the question, so Texas would be "own its own" with help from unofficial "freedom fighters" from the Frontier territories west of the Appalachian Mountains. I can see that succeeding and at the same time weakening the US. "New France," or whatever it would be called, would then face the Texans on the coast and the Native Americans in the interior. Its populace would become citizens of Texas (the interior not being populated). By the time of the American Civil War, Louisiana would be no more. Texas would not have joined the US, but it may still have been an ally to the Confederacy. The state of Louisiana would not exist and the delta area east of the River would become part of Mississippi (the map needs a little adjustment).
With no new states as leverage, neither side in the Civil War would have had an advantage. There would be no Missouri Compromise and no "Bleeding Kansas" to provoke Congressmen. Back home in the south, with Lincoln winning the election (both he and Breckinridge lose electoral votes, so the election goes about the same), the states would secede and war would ensue as in OTL. The "western front" would be a bit more concentrated as Grant is able to take the Mississippi River without having to worry about the war in California. The war in the east, then would be easier thus shortening the war over all.
The list of presidents so far looks okay, though with James Monroe the "Monroe Doctrine" would not be very effective since the treaties with England have essentially kept any threat against further European colonization from being enforced. James Polk would not come to power without a vision for expansion either. Heroes of the Mexican-American War in OTL would probably be passed over as well. All Pacific annexations are out, so William McKinley would not win in wanting to annex Hawaii. But that does not mean he would not be elected. The Spanish-American War, which made Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt a hero, would have not been allowed, so even TR is probably removed from the scene. The World Wars would go differently, I suppose, given a neutral (and weaker) USA. FDR would not have become as powerful without the War, and war hero Dwight Eisenhower (if he existed) would not rise to power either. JFK may not have risen to power either.
Wow! I did not mean to write so much. I hope some of this helps.
Feliz Navidad! --SouthWriter (talk) 05:09, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this helps very much, thanks South ^^ The advices about the Civil War and the famous presidents (Roosevelt, JFK) are very useful. I think that my friend now will continues his TL in a better way. Regards! --Katholico (talk) 20:20, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Please not, I edited to say that the "Monroe Doctrine" would NOT be very effective if expansion was not an option. Also, FDR, like TR, was an assistant secretary of the Navy. If the US was not in WW I, he would not have got much -- if any -- experience to propel him higher into national politics a decade or so later.
I am looking over this a bit and I may see if I can adopt "No Destiny" here. I assume that the Spanish Version is not just a translation. If you like, though, I can change the name and even the POD just a little. I just like the idea of a US with limited power. It's not that I don't appreciate what we have here now, but perhaps with less power the states could be more 'independent' in their governance. I see that even with the Civil War, if it is limited, the government may not become as centralized.
Feliz Navidad! --SouthWriter (talk) 03:30, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
By
About Monroe, that No, then changes the things XD
About No Destiny, you're correct, the spanish version is not just a traslation. My friend has changed many things from the original (like the countries or the duration of the US independence War), but there is NOT problem with the name. You can continue calling to the TL No Destiny ^_^ Regards and thanks! --Katholico (talk) 03:50, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion about President Tyler. :D I will discuss about this with Guerrero, so, he will decide. Regards and Thanks! Feliz Navidad! --Katholico (talk) 17:56, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
I have come across a wiki that is in desperate need of a major clean and reboot. None of the Admins have been active for some time. The wiki is all but dead. I have tried contacting Wika to request full rights as an admin and maybe even adopt it (If that is possible) but have not been answered. Could you provide a contact who will reliably answer?
I'm sorry, David, I had trouble getting much personal advice when I started a wiki. I have not made many contacts with Wiki Central, so I don't know who to recommend. I see you tried contacting the creator of the wiki (as did another guy). I see Eoguy has been busy cleaning up the site. I'd say just start on the Main Page of the site. Edit it to look professional and then just "act like" an administrator. You won't be able to change things easily, but at least you'll be seen as active in trying to save the site. THEN maybe the people at Wiki Central will notice you. SouthWriter (talk) 03:58, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Unification of NC
Hey South.
Since I adopted Blue Ridge from Brian, respectively, I've been increasing thinking about the possibility of unification of North Carolina between Blue Ridge, the Outer Banks, the Republic of the Inner Banks, and Elizabeth City. I got the idea based off the unification of Texas and Florida.
My main question is:
Is it plausible for the mentioned nations to unify under a single government?
There is a lot of wasteland between the coast and the mountains, including the renegade Kerr Republic (still a proposal). I would think that with continued relations, though, a coalition of sorts could be worked out. There is apparently "bad blood" among all three "states" (I wouldn't go as far as calling them "nations"), so uniting with Blue Ridge might not work without more of the interior being developed. As it is, though, the small states would gain a lot if they at least worked together. I'll gladly work with you to see if some sort of union of the coast can be worked out. Then we can start working on the whole state. SouthWriter (talk) 04:08, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
That's great. But what about the authors of the other the coastal nations? Enclavehunter (talk) 04:27, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
It looks like those are all mostly under my titular control. A user named Alexanders lives in the Outer Banks and helped out, but he never took control of the project. Alexanders created the Inner Banks article, but received a lot of corrections in order to get the article graduated to the stub it now is. Elizabeth City was actually the first entity identified, though the article came much later. It was put up by Owen1983 (unpopular, to say the least) and then edited by Mitro and Brian, and then myself. I am "still active" while those two admins are semi-retired. I'd say we can try to contact them if need be. --SouthWriter (talk) 05:08, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
I'll contact them tomorrow and see if they reply. Enclavehunter (talk) 05:33, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Hey South. I've contact the two author's of the Inner and Outer Banks nation. In the mean time, I was wondering, should and if the caretakers of the stated nations respond and agree, how would the unification play out. I would assume the two nations would consoldiate their holds within the region and probally expand outward into western and southern North Carolina, while Blue Ridge will expand eastward towards the Atlantic Ocean.
What do you think? Enclavehunter (talk) 05:44, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the coastal states would have to get over their differences and unite to continue to prosper. Having contacted Blue Ridge, they would probably be more than willing to reconstitute North Carolina. Given the opportunity, they would indeed began to spread inward. Contact with Kerr would probably have already been made, so they would have to deal with them. I am of the opinion that most of these people really don't want to be self-contained city-states anyway. Blue Ridge will just be taking over the role once held by the government in Raleigh, so their expansion would be follow logically. I really don't think of "southern" North Carolina, though. There are three general areas - Western, Central, and Coastal - with the Central part the worst hit. True, the coastal areas south of the Outer Banks was attacked, but the true devestation was in the center portion. SouthWriter (talk) 06:02, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Wingman. We had the family gift exchange Saturday afternoon, so now we can just enjoy the season. I have errands to run tomorrow, though, so I don't envy you small-town folk. I hope you have finished all your shopping and can enjoy the "wait" until Tuesday morning. SouthWriter (talk) 21:06, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
Re: Edit Warring Discussions.
Glad I could help. The final decision is up to you, but I do hope you don't believe I went out of line. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:11, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
No, you saw unauthorized changes and you dealt with them well. I need to set aside at least a half an hour to work on the articles of the TwoAm time line. Two things come to mind: changing Wilson to be less progressive (I still have him almost identical, though it was school in the north that influenced him most) and perhaps rethinking Barach Obama (since he may not have even been born in this time line). The more time relative photos, though, was an honest attempt at improving the article, so it deserves a second look. SouthWriter (talk) 04:20, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
re:Skywalker Ranch
Oh wow. I did not know that about the wind direction. Thank you ^_^. As for the blasts, the Ranch is well out of the blast radii. As for who would be living at the estate, I'm still deciding on that. I'm scared to think about what would happen if George Lucas ran a country. CrimsonAssassin (talk) 20:32, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
It might be wise to leave Lucas out of it just because it would be hard to place him there at that particular time. However, the regular staff that run the Ranch would probably be easier to place, given the right resources. Even if that proves too difficult, creating the characters is not fully out of the question (though I agree with Ganon that real people are always best). SouthWriter (talk) 05:02, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
Apology
Haha, sorry man. I will, its a big moment cause I sometimes do read the Independent and stuff. I'll remember next timeman, sorry about that again. :L Imp(Say Hi?!) 07:50, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
New Vegas (1983: Doomsday)
I'm currently working on how to turn the obsolete New Vegas into plausible addition to the timeline. I'm doing my best to follow the suggestions you posted on it's talkpage. I'd like you to help me with it, since most of the ideas present came from you. Yank 03:32, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I look forward to it. If you haven't already, perhaps you can add some commentary to promote the Facebook page. SouthWriter (talk) 01:48, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
that's a good idea. i might put a link to the grouip on there. also i am useing YoTube to make edits to the Videos and am Re-posting them to the group, while leaving v1 and v2 of each on YouTube. (Gota love the fack that YouTune lets you download copys of your own stuff.Wingman1 02:42, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
Piedmont Republic (1983: Doomsday) edits.
Hey South, i saw where EoGuy changed some edits i reverted and he reverted back could you check and see if theay are ok and if not ya might want to have a word with him.18:48, June 21, 2013 (UTC)Wingman1
Sigh... You may as well ignore Wing there, South. Eo did a spelling correction to that article and Wing missed that entirely. I've had a word with him about it, and put the correction back in. Lordganon (talk) 10:24, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
South, i an not entirely convenced you did not intend to spell it the other way. I have heard idt spelled both ways my whole life.
Sigh... Really LG you put THAT in,? tsk,tsk
LG, you put the correction back in without talking to ANYONE. ~more in your talk page.
Eo even put a note explaining the grammar error he fixed on Wing's page, lol. And now Wing freaks out about it. Lordganon (talk) 06:56, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
My, my, guys, such a commotion over two words. Thank you, EoGuy, for the edits. Thank you Wingman for the concern. Actually, the "It's" was incorrect, and the "Airbase" can be spelled both ways. I always use the "Source" version to check spelling of all my edits. Typing "airbase" in google brings up the Wikipedia page for "Military airbase." The examples of airbases, though, are spelled with the compound word divided. Since I intended for the base to be used by the unified military of the Republic, I think "Military Airbase" works better. Besides, "DMA" fits the three letter protocol for air fields. I'll fix it as soon as I successfully post this note. SouthWriter (talk) 02:05, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
Props, Stubs, Etc.
Long time no hear. Doing well, I hope?
Go ahead and add it to the main page if you like. Be a quick graduation, at least.
Nothing quite in the works at the moment, but something will be up later this week, I'm sure. Any ideas?
Go with Simpson-Brownback. Much as I prefer Brownback, have to go with the VP advantage for Simpson, in the end. Maybe we can just have him serve one term and then get our preferred guy in, lol. ~48-47 over Tester/Ringo, with like 3% for the Libs, and the rest mostly for an independent.
Yeah, I still have a lot of time, but have moved my energies elsewhere. I started having symptoms of what seemed to be a stomach virus -- a month ago! I finally went to the doctor, and because of a screw-up with insurance have to wait a week longer for tests and diagnosis. Good news, somewhat, is that it has my weight down to below 240!
I like the prospect of a fast graduation. I'll post the proposal for both Royal Crown and Pepsi.
Since inquiries in the summer of 2012 brought only your lists and a few paragraphs of discussion, I figured the two of us would be making this decision anyway, so Simpson-Brownback it is. Maybe Sarah Heath can be the Secretary of State (just a thought). I'll make the changes to the Info box. I'll let you fill in the details in the paragraph on the 2012 Presidential Race. --SouthWriter (talk) 17:24, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Stomach Virus, not fun. Hope it's nothing serious.
Kinda figured that with regards to the election.
With her, some sort of political position sounds good - but not that one. Given her background, even atl, I have to doubt that she would have skills or background for the State position. Thinking on it, however, Secretary of the Interior would probably be a good fit for her.
A note - I meant the Libertarians when I wrote "Libs." The centrist Oregon Democracy Coalition wouldn't be established in any real way nationally by this election, and wouldn't run anyone, as well. Lordganon (talk) 08:32, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was assuming that the ODC was renamed the "Liberal Party." I neglected to check the Oregon article, and now have "egg" on my face. Do you think, though, that the ODC might have had a candidate on the ticket (at least in Oregon) that could garner several districts. That would send the election to Congress just as I stated in the news article. I doubt if anyone will notice an archived news article anyway, but I wanted to add some authenticity to the race. If you're in agreement, I'll change the "Liberal Party" to the ODC and proceed from there. According to the Revised Constitution, out-of-state auditors count the votes from the districts in each state. SouthWriter (talk) 15:40, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
Be no point to them running a candidate, really. No time at all to organize a national version of the ODC - remember, Oregon only joined, rather suddenly, in August, a bit less than three months prior to the election - and it is impossible for them to win or even influence the result this time around. Without any members in Congress yet, they wouldn't even be able to influence decisions there as to who becomes President. Really, it would be a struggle for them to even have a so-called "party machine" in Oregon itself at that point at a higher than state level. More expense if they try to do it, too.
I just don't see them even bothering. All it would be is something that would hold no impact on the overall result, cost money, and cause a major political headache. Just no point to it, at best.
And, too, they'd probably win the majority of the districts in Oregon. Complied some congressional results yesterday, and it looks like my earlier estimate of the ODC getting all but two seats there would probably be accurate. Bet on that meaning presidential, too.
Yes, I'm aware that the revised constitution calls for that. But with as close as Oregon would probably have gone, we can reasonably assume they'd have needed a recount past that point to make sure.
I was thinking that the spirit of democracy ("We the people"?) of the ODC might wish to exert as much pressure as needed to send a message to the leadership in Torrington from the very beginning. Though no longer independent, the mutual agreement to stay autonomous would carry a bit of a political "headache" all of its own. Would it not be consistent to their nature as a democracy to grant ballot access for US president to their own majority party? If the new states' citizens voted in the presidential election, then their newly elected representatives would have the right to represent them in the Congressional selection if the election came to that. Oregon's new representatives, when canvassed, would cast their collective vote for their favorite son, or one of twelve votes cast. This would break the tie, giving the election to the candidate with the majority of the districts in 6 states: the Republican. It adds a bit of spice to the time line.
On the other hand, if they don't bother to put an ODC candidate on the ballot, or the Republicans or Democrats get extremely political to make it a close three man race, then it's going to be a recount for the districts to be decided by plurality alone. In the end, the districts might split evenly after all, again forcing the election into the House (for President) and the Senate (for Vice President). If that happened, which way would the ODC representatives vote? I assume they would vote for the centrist Simpson over the more liberal Jon Testor. BTW, I just checked OTL Senator Testor's page. You chose a good candidate for the Democratic party. I can see why this would have been a close election.
I'll leave it up to you, Ganon, though I am the de facto caretaker of the US article. Write up the paragraph on the 2012 presidential election and I will insert the appropriate "news flashes" to archives to reflect that. Your opinion on these things, given your field of study, is very valuable to the whole wiki, and not just this time line.
I wish you a good evening, and look forward to further collaboration in this effort. SouthWriter (talk) 02:53, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
Well, way I figure it, the "autonomy" that they were allowed would be respecting their agreement with Astoria, and allowing them some sort of leeway so that they can have some degree of a separate relationship with that state. Think of it as something akin to the Canadian government allowing Quebec to be a separate member of some international organizations, or letting Alberta run its own trade offices in the USA.
To some degree it would be consistent with the views of the ODC to give themselves ballot access, but at the same time, it would also be inconsistent in that it would be considered unnecessary and a waste. Part of why things went down in Oregon as they did, remember.
In the event of no candidate winning a majority of the EVs, precedent would have it being the outgoing Congress that decides it. As for the constitutional amendments that apply to that concept, the only limit on it is that it must take place after the electors formally meet in each state, which occurs by law in December. Going by that, they'd have until early January to decide on the President, and if they took longer the new one would get a say. Very debatable, of course, since it hasn't really come up for the presidency since 1824.
The ODC guys would probably split on the matter. Would not be surprised if they would have a draw with their votes, or most of them voting "no preference" on it.
In the context of "western" politics, the two would both be fairly centrist, just with one being mildly left of it and the other mildly right of it. By our measure, of course, it would not be that way, but things out in that direction are a bit different, after all.
I was thinking about Asia in Two Americas. Japan would be more predilected towards the Union, Taiwan and Korea would be more pro-Confederate. I think in the Korean War, the Confederates launched an assault into Namp'o in North Korea, while the Union launched the attack in Inchon as in OTL. According to CSA, two democratic states calling both themselves as America is OK, but one communist and one democratic state calling themselves as Korea is no-no. With two attacks by the two North American states, the North Korean regime collapses, Kim Il-Sung captured by the CSA and turned over to the South Koreans, with a predictable execution, and decided to hold up by the 40th parallel to resist the Chinese invasion. After two years of stalemate, the Chinese abandoned North Korea to the South and was re-united. Taiwan was saved by the intervention of the CS Pacific Fleet.
The Philippines might be better off as an independent state but allied with the US than either a US state or territory as in OTL. It might be a bit richer, and more arrogant though. It with a flimsy pretext invaded Sabah in the 1960s and the US was embarrassed about it.
The CSA would support the Apartheid regime in South Africa, not so much as they are white-majority governments but because they fear the alternative would be a communist regime. The end of apartheid would be somewhat smoother and the CS and the US would help shape them. South Africa will still have atomic weaponry, on CS insistence.
Mexico despite having losing terriory would be more militaristic and revanchist. However, it smartly avoiding antagonizing both American states further.
I think Quebec might secede in 1995 with the pretext that the CS invoked the right to secede from the Union. The CS might support Quebec's bid for independence.
I also saw some CS-victory scenarios where the CS support the Arabs over the Israelis. I think I disagree. They will support the Israelis for sentimental and religious reasons. The CSA would be indeed a conservative country, but only on the levels as in OTL.
Thanks for your interest. As is written in the time line, the Korean War goes to the Soviet backed north because in this time line the UN does not step in. Taiwan never gets established, due to the failure of the nationalist revolt to set up shop there. The problem is that the CSA is occupied with keeping the peace in Central America, leaving the USA with limited forces to be world peace keepers. Vietnam falls to the Communist north as well.
The maps have been deleted, so I am no sure about the states of the USA -- or even the CSA. I am not sure why Nuke removed them, so I will have to get back to you about the USA states you mention. SouthWriter (talk) 19:15, October 10, 2013 (UTC)
A Southern "The Troubles"
What do you think of creating a Troubles analogue in the Confederacy in the "Cinco De Mayo" timeline? I've done a lot of research on the Troubles for a book I'm writing and since I've tried to roughly make the ATL United States the Britain to Germany's OTL United States, I think it could be a decent fit. I've called it "the Problems."
I'm planning to continue with my timeline Presidente Portales, and with list of US presidents. If you don't remember here is the article. These are my ideas for the next presidents:
Benjamin Harrison (1893-1897)
Grover Cleveland (1897-1901)
William McKinley (1901-1905; if he is assassinated like OTL)
Theodore Roosevelt (1905-1913)
What you think? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 23:03, November 1, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. If I remember correctly, there is a change in US history based on a different result in the Mexican American war in the 1830's. I see that you have Lincoln from 1865 to 1877 (12 years). This seems fine to me. You'll have to research whether the change in politics leading up to the Spanish American War (if you have one in TTL) as to whether McKinley would be assassinated in in the ALT. Having him serve out his term puts off Teddy Roosevelt's term until 1905, otherwise, you have to determine if you want TR to go for a third term. In OTL he served a second term after over three years in place of McKinley. SouthWriter (talk) 23:47, November 2, 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that happen in my timeline. Thanks :)
Well, actually I had planned that Cuba gain his independence from Spain during a different version of the war between Spain and Chile/Perú in the 1860's. Only Philippines and the Pacific islands remain under Spanish control, so I don't know if still exist any possibility for a Spanish-American War, between Spain vs US or the CSA. Regards! --Katholico (talk) 19:11, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, by the way... with the CSA presidents, I have Davis (1870-1876) and Stephens (1876-1882), but for later I have doubts. Benjamin G. Humphreys died en 1882. Maybe John Henninger Reagan? or James Longstreet? What you think? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 05:09, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
Well, having pushed the war up in your time line, it does alter things as far as who to pick, does it not? Anyway, check out my list of Confederate Presidents at the "Two Americas" time line. I chose a lot of civil war Generals all the way up to 1900. I haven't considered your suggestions, though I have heard of Longstreet. If my list doesn't look good for you, get back to me after I have had a chance to look into Reagan and Longstreet. SouthWriter (talk) 01:18, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
Jeje Yep ^_^U
Well, thanks very much, I think then that I will use both (Reagan and Longstreet) and some presidents from your LT :) Also I must take a look to other possible parties for CSA. I saw that you put a President from a new party just in 1951 with Eisenhower and the Constitutionist Party. Regards! :) --Katholico (talk) 21:51, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Thank you!
You're welcome. ^^ -Kogasa 2013 November 25, 03:42 (CET)
Companies in the United and Confederate States
I guess Coke and Pepsi would exist in the TL.
McDonalds might be associated with the Union, KFC for the CSA [Colonel Sanders is actually from Indiana, but from a border town near Kentucky, so it might make sense. He might serve in the CS Army instead].
In oil companies, Shell operates in Both American countries, Chevron is Confederate, and ExxonMobil is Union. I don't know yet if I would add companies that didn't exist in OTL or failed/closed in OTL.
Yep, Coke and Pepsi are both Confederate products. It appears that much of Sander's activity, especially his early life, took place in the north. The first half of the 20th century would allow more movement across the border, but I'm not sure if Sanders would be doing business in the south.
As for companies that failed or closed in OTL, that would depend on the conditions in TTL. SouthWriter (talk) 03:59, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
Jamaica (1983:DD)
Hello South! I hope you're doing well. I just wanted to ask what your current plans are for the Jamaica proposal. As I continue to work on the ECF, it's becoming clear to me that Jamaica's history is a key part of the entire federation. If you would be okay with it, I would be eager and willing to caretake the Jamaica article and bring it up to graduation-level completeness. If you would rather that I didn't, that's fine as well. I just thought I'd ask. ^^ Regentage (talk) 18:47, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
It is okay with me, Reg. I always knew that Jamaica was important in the ECF. It's relationship with the old USA was a crucial part of the Carribean culture. You have my permission and blessing. Have a blessed Christmas season. SouthWriter (talk) 19:56, December 14, 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you very much, South. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas season as well. Regentage (talk) 17:18, December 19, 2013 (UTC)
Sideways Earth
Sideways Earth seems like a very interesting timeline and I look forward to reading more about it. Interesting point about "ASB - Environmental". Really when you think about it you could make the argument that any timeline is ASB in the sense that something different happened, and as for environmental, I guess we'll never know how aliens controlled the minds of the weather. ASB is a strange tag in my opinion, sort of like having two sections in the library for "Fiction" and "Bad Fiction", and unfortunately the tag has driven many good writers from the wiki after having their first work labelled as such. I know too the persistence of the administration first hand, in 1983: Doomsday for example, where for a time I felt like I was barred from contributing. Several dead end proposals, obsoletes, and deleted pages later and I am still attempting to enter the timeline. Hopefully one day I get permission to adopt an article again, and I hope I can be a positive contribution in the future.
Anyway, thank you for your message, which has greatly bettered my day. I hope to see you around on the wiki. Thanks, Mscoree (talk) 17:14, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
I mainly want to adopt it to change the name. It just irritates me that GB chose such an uncreative name for it. It could have been the "Republic of Little Washington" or the "United Republic of the Albemarle", but he decided to call it the "Inner Banks". And can you help me flesh out the article I made for Kannapolis? --Yank 01:02, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Historical designations for areas usually work better, Yank. A user once tried to incorporate Albemarle into the name (see history for specifics), but without discussion or permission. Creativity is fine and good, but an alternative history is a place to shoot for plausible projections. If GB is willing, I can work with a name change, as long as it is not too bold for the simple townfolk in the area. However, changing the name is not a good reason to adopt a dormant article.
As for Kannapolis, let me know what you have in mind and I'll do a little research to help out. It seems to be a town with Nascar history (the Earnharts). Whereas the sport took a major hit with Doomsday, I'm sure it would have revived to a degree in some of the more successful survivor nations by now. SouthWriter (talk) 18:03, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
I want Kannapolis to be a ruggedly independent nation that's mostly self-sufficient. I don't really have any specifics of what I want it to be about, so any help you can provide would be good. --Yank 03:02, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Help with Mapmaking
Hello, Mr. SouthWriter!
I recently noticed that you added yourself to a list of mapmakers. I was wondering if you could give me some tips on how to do it? I am planning on making my own map game, and I thought making a map for it might be helpful.
I listed myself as a "map maker" quite awhile back, but am not aware of "recently" adding myself to a list. If you want to start a map game, consult one of the regular players. However, for a map game, perhaps you should look for a world or continent map with existing nations included for reference sake. On the other hand, a free-hand introduction of borders based on mountain ranges and rivers might work better. Thanks for asking. SouthWriter (talk) 23:37, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
RE: Blocked Person
Guy keeps/kept putting random nonsense into things, along with a small amount of content, on many different IPs. At this point, each one gets blocked upon editing. Far, far, far more than two IPs, too. Warned the first time, haven't bothered warning the other ones (since it is incredibly obvious that it is the same person)
Hello. NuclearVacuum informed me that you are the current owner of Two Americas. I was wondering if I could adopt that alternate history. (United Republic 21:03, September 10, 2014 (UTC))
What are your plans as to the direction you want to take the time line? Nuke wanted to show a fully "progressive" America up against a fully "conservative" one. We disagreed a little bit on what the conservativism might look like. I would like to see a closer look at plausibility as well. I guarded against writing in OTL people where they could not be. For instance, I have been thinking about whether 9/11 would have occurred and whether Barach Obama would have ever been born. The butterfly effect would have caused quite some ripples in the time line.
I don't have much time to put into the time line, so I am willing to consider turning it over to a qualified alternate historian. Run some idea by me and we'll see where it leads. SouthWriter (talk) 15:36, September 11, 2014 (UTC)
Was I really that dysfunctional? Lol. -- NuclearVacuum 01:06, September 12, 2014 (UTC)
Nah. Just wishful thinking. All that plausibility police work wears a guy out. So many butterflies! Quantum theory gives me a headache! LOL. SouthWriter (talk) 04:07, September 13, 2014 (UTC)
You can also chalk it up to me know very little about what I was doing at the time (still getting into AH at the time). Sorry if I was a pain for you, which is why I left the timeline for you to do as you wished. XP -- NuclearVacuum 02:29, September 14, 2014 (UTC)
Susquehanna
Would you be willing to look over the pages I have made associating with Susquehanna as well as the nation page? Could you also tell me if anything is unrealistic, and help me edit it and try to get it graduated? Thanks for all your help!! Daeseunglim (talk)
RE:Looking to adopt
Yes, I'm most definitely interested. I've read over the articles you mentioned, and I'll be sure to remain within 1983:DD canon. Thanks for letting me adopt!Shikataga nai! 20:39, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
I see you have added something of the politics of the state. However, I have posted on your talk page and on the the article's talk page some points you need to consider. Thank you for your contributions. SouthWriter (talk) 14:55, February 14, 2015 (UTC)
World Country Profiles Page
As an fyi, had to revert you to undo the table mess Eo did. Restored the changes you made afterwards. Lordganon (talk) 17:05, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.SouthWriter (talk) 23:26, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
Hey South, could you look through this page and tell me what you think? Also could you look through the Defense Forces page and cities page? Thanks. Daeseunglim (talk)
I sent a message to your talk page earlier, and it went through. Is there another "in box" I need to check? I am not even sure where that might be. SouthWriter (talk) 00:05, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
azespero@yahoo.com
The first time I got a message at the bottom right of my screen but it did not show up in my azespero@yahoo.com inbox.
The second one I found in my deleted messages - I got no message at the bottom right of my screen.
Anyway, I hope whatever system bug you are facing will improve. Feel free to contact me via email anytime. Now that I know who you are, I won't overlook it. Henry SouthWriter (talk) 15:48, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
Susquehanna
Can you look over the page again? And to alter other pages to include my nation, do I need their authors permission? Daeseunglim (talk)
The page is extensive! It shows a lot of work -- more than I can evaluate. However, I think you should heed Lordganon's admonitions to "keep it small." It seems way too thriving for basically a county government working by itself over the course of 30 years. Personally, I think it would have merged with the more successful nations long ago to avoid complete "extinction." However, since you show a determination far exceeding most editors (including myself), I would be in favor of graduation.
Only after graduation should you altering references to Susquehanna elsewhere. Any active editors to those sites will be there to advise you if you make a mistake. Inactive editors may never even notice. SouthWriter (talk) 04:33, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
Catching Up, USAR and the Future of the South
Hey South, hope all has been well these past few years. Don't know how active you've been in keeping up with current affairs but I came back to the site and 1983DD in particular last month after a few years of my attention straying from it and getting a few crucial years of life experience under my belt.
Since coming back I've felt a strong urge to not only pick up on unfinished projects, but to also make up for "lost" time. One of the projects which has caught my urgency involved the USAR's relationship with the Torrington US government. While writing this in LG pointed me to several objections brought in by other editors regarding the plausibility of full-on statehood or unified government of some sort, and he was right on many points for the most part.
This led to me to begin brainstorming other courses of action, and sheer curiosity led me to revisiting not only the USAR's finer points, but one of your hidden gems, Neonotia, and most importantly its founder. I feel like Jimmy Carter's role as being the other "last" US President has largely been neglected outside of founding Neonotia. I have thought about tying him in with other projects I am still plotting out, one of which involves a joint Remnant-Floridian offensive to reclaim most of the rest of the Floridian peninsula (thinking aroud the lines of titling it "Operation Spearhead, has a ring to it, no?) which would result in a USAR protectorate somewhere on the eastern Coast of Florida, further staking its claim as being one of the few true successors to the defunct original United States by finally holding sovereign territory on the mainland. This would all have happened around 2013 or so, possibly dragging into 2014.
Where Carter/Neonotia fits into this would involve a state visit to Charlotte Amalie, or maybe USAR visit to Americus vis a versa, after the American Spring (which yielded little new additions to the timeline) in which the former President would touch on the failed reunification with the Torrington government, and perhaps spark a dialogue regarding reunifying some of the Southern States (thinking Florida, Neonotia, the USVI and maybe Louisiana) under their own regional "United States" which would merge with the Great Plains based nation years down the line when the time comes.
This may also have the effect of rallying the states of the defunct Confederacy to once again reemerge as a consolidated CSA, although that's another animal entirely.
This would likely be a large undertaking, and an ambitious one at that, and I can feel it in my bones that I will most likely encounter verystaunch opposition from a certain contributor or two in particular, but I do feel that with input from others with knowledge in the region and concessions to outside opinions that it is an entirely doable project and would make a nice fit to the timeline. Let me know what your thoughts are, and if you would be willing to lend a hand or at least a second opinion. Arstartalk 15:34, September 20, 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'd say "welcome back" but I have been out of the loop for quite some time. As the Brass moved on to other projects, it came down to me and Ganon. Since he is a consummate researcher and trained historian, I have learned that arguing with him is not worth it. Anyway, I was right proud of the idea of Neonotia. Once I was able to push Carter past the deathbed visitation with his sister (getting him back to the Atlanta area on the day of the attack, I think!), the rest fell together pretty well. Our work with the USAR worked out okay, so I can see that government helping take back the western panhandler. With Neonotia next door, former president/governor Carter would be a good one to work with as an ambassador to other former US states.
I am not sure about the former CSA becoming viable again. Better for them to merge with adjacent areas into new states (though then the USA might not be able to absorb them as well). As always, I will be around for second opinions, though I probably won't be an active administrator. I am working on two other Bible-based wikis right now which takes up all my time. --SouthWriter (talk) 01:10, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
Any advice on how to get the ball rolling with this, then? And of the ex-CSA states, who would be more likely to gravitate in what direction? I definitely see a few leaning towards EAA affiliation but I can't tell for sure. Arstartalk 12:56, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
Well, seeing the lack of cohesion in the CSA, I'd predict that Georgia (Rome) will gravitate to the EAA. Alabama and Mississippi will merge and gravitate towards the lower city-states down towards Louisiana. The little bit of Missouri will join up with Kentucky or Cape Gerardeaux. Tennessee might go with Kentucky or with the East Tennessee and the EAA. As for how to get the ball rolling, I'd say travel among the states and nations would become more common in the 2000's, leading to local alliances. By now, these would be strong enough to press for some kind of order out of the chaos. SouthWriter (talk) 01:26, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
Civil War Question
It's been a while since we last talked. Hope you've been doing alright. I'm aware that you've been absent for quite some time (at least until recently), so please don't feel bad if you stumble across this message down the line (nothing to worry about).
The reason I messaged you is because I have a Civil War question that I know you can answer (I hope you don't mind). In my timeline Russian America, the United States never annexes the Pacific Northwest or the Mexican Cession. The US is able to purchase Eastern Texas from Mexico and is able to annex Upper Canada following a revolution there in the 1840s. Though it would become a reality later, a Transcontinental Railroad is constructed between the USA and the Russian Empire (with this line going across [OTL] Southern Oregon-Idaho and through Nebraska).
My main question for you is: with the American West not being an issue, would the Civil War even happen?
I believe you stated to someone else that it could likely still happen, though this was for another timeline and another user. I believe it's still possible, and the issues of slavery and nationalism still play a role in causing it (though with very different results).
If this is indeed correct, how different would this ACW be? Would states like Virginia still feel impelled to secede? I'm also pondering the initial balance the US did between Free and Slave states. With the US (essentially) getting Ontario, would the prospect of allow Kansas to become a slave state be lax in order to keep this balance?
If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. I look forward to your reply. Thank you so much for your time. -- NuclearVacuum 02:38, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I stumbled upon it about 3 months later. I have recently joined on the chat page and come across United Repbublic, a Civil War buff *transplanted Yankee." He lives near me in SC!
Anyway, I can see where a balance of slave states versus free states might change things. With Ontario a free state, Kansas would not be an issue. It might go either way. I wish I could be more helpful. UR and I are going to try to update our separate timelines together. Feel free to pop in on either one to see how things are going. SouthWriter (talk) 01:14, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
Re: South Carolina, CSA
Hey that's so cool man (I live right on the border of NC and SC) and I enjoyed our conversation too. Hopefully you'll be able to come on chat more often.
As for Two Americas, I'd certainly enjoy collaborating with you to fill in the gaps that are remaining in the TL. I'll make sure I read through the timeline so I can get a good feel for it and begin contributing for it. Thank you very much for allowing me to collaborate with you on this timeline!
I look forward to our new friendship on this wiki as well!
I am sure I have driven on the road past your house if you have been living "on the border" for very long. I come and go to Asheville a lot, but I have also been over to and around Charlotte, NC. I am familiar with Hiways 276, 25, I-26, I-77 and I-95 (among others).
I look forward to working with you. Maybe we might even meet in person some day.
Peace, SouthWriter (talk) 01:24, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
Collaboration on Two Americas
Hello South Writer,
I noticed how you have decided to collaborate with United Republic on Two Americas. It is one of my favorite TL's and I was wondering if I could possibly contribute to it in regards to the United States in Two Americas. I would love to work with you and UR on this TL to clean it up and fix it up. Hope you can get back to me!
We will be glad to have your help. In keeping with Nuke's plan, you can go as "progressive" as you want with the politics and societial issues. I will be there to "keep it real," so watch with the ASB stuff, okay? lol
With me, it is a lot about whose ancestors would be where, and when. And, even with open borders, the two nations would not develop as if they were one. I think building the TL based on the presidential Bios (making sure they agree, of course) is a good way to proceed. SouthWriter (talk) 01:31, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
Of course, obviously with the ASB stuff. I'll be sure to research individuals and their ancestry when if I decide to include them in anything related to the United States. Thank you so much for allowing me to collaborate with you on Two Americas!
I didn't even know that the other timeline existed, sorry. Any suggested changes so it is different than the other? Thanks for the list of people, that is helpful! Daeseunglim (talk) 20:27, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
US 2016 Elections (CNS)
Hi South!! How are you? :) You remember my timeline Chile No Socialista? Well, this year are the presidential elections in the United States, and I'm looking for potential candidates, specially in the Democratic Party. I'm not sure if the candidates in each party will be the same like OTL. The current president is Mike Huckabee and the VP is Tim Pawlenty.
What do you think? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 00:23, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
I see a very strong Hillary Clinton, not weakened by her stint as Secretary of State. Having continued in the Senate, she would probably have become minority leader there. In 2008, she would have probably have gained the nomination and faced Huckaby, losing in a close race. Continuing in the Senate, which probably would have gained a majority in Huckaby's second term, she wisely sat out the 2012 elections cycle.
Let us assume that the Democratic Party had not pushed for junior Senator Obama in 2008, giving him a full six years as junior Senator from Illinois. It doesn't matter for the 2016 elections as to who would have been the candidate. Then we have a reelected Obabma with 10 years in the Senate. In 2012 the opposition to Huckaby could have been anyone, leaving both Clinton and Obama to grow powerful. This sets up a "replay" of a Clinton-Obama rivalry not much different than in OTL 2008.
As for the Republican side, the nomination can be assumed to go to TTL Vice President Tim Pawlenty. Too spice things up, let us assume that Governor Sarah Palin, having not been picked as VP in 2008, filled out her term as governor of Alaska without much harassment from the press. Having been popular, she would be reelected in 2010 and run for Senate in 2014, against Mark Bagich. She would win, giving Alaska two female Senators. Powlenty will choose her as his running mate, anticipating Senator Clinton's win against Obama.
Now, I have to go work on the 2016 races in 1983:DD. :-)
SouthWriter (talk) 20:17, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
I really like all these ideas :D
So, probably we have a Clinton vs Pawlenty in november, ok. But even if Pawlenty is the front-runner, what othe republican candidates can participe in the primaries? Currently in OTL, there are 6 candidates, but I think in the timeline just one or two of them could accept face to Pawlenty, right?.
Thanks ver much South!! Regards! and good luck with the elections in 1983DD ;) --Katholico (talk) 04:50, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
First off, I'm only assuming the Republican Party would be naturally behind Pawlenty. I have not examined what a Huckaby-Pawlenty presidency would have done in eight years, but I am sure it would not be anywhere near what Obama-Biden has been. After sixteen years with a Republican at the top, things are likely to change.
Let us assume that Pawlenty has not distinguished himself in his role as president of the Senate (by now holding a majority). I can imagine that behind the scenes a moderate RNC will be fielding candidates to challenge the vice president. Jeb Bush would have gone into politics after his dad's failed campaign for president, though his brother had chosen not to do so. Unlike George, Jeb had become quite wealthy in banking and real estate. His stint as governor would have been more noticeable since it had not been under the shadow of his brother. I can see him rising up in the primaries as a candidate.
Donald Trump might rise up to seek the nomination as well. Since the billionaire has been in and out of political races since the 1980's, I don't see the different flow of history (with the earlier move of the Democrats to power) affecting that. If he sees a chance, he might indeed take it. It would depend on the success of the strong McCain administration, and a peaceful Huckabee presidency.
Assuming again that the tax code has not been altered by 15 years of a Republican in the Whitehouse, we might see the rise of something like the TEA party. Such candidates as Rubio and Cruz might come into play. Though not entering Washington politics in 1999 (No Bush campaign), I don't see why Cruz's impressive career as Solicitor General would not become enough to draw attention from those who did not think the Huckabee administration had helped the cause (his having been a "big spending" government). He would probably become Senator on schedule.
Marco Rubio rose to power without any help from the Bushes, so his entrance into the race would probably be a move by moderates who see his activity in the Senate as a way of "crossing the isle." I am not sure how well he would do in the primary with the VP being the presumed front runner. It would depend on how often the two had disagreements in Washington.
Of the other candidates in OTL, I doubt if some would have entered the race with a Republican administration in power. The 'outsiders' Carson and Fiorina probably would not enter the fray. Governors Christie and Kasich would not have any reason to jump in against fellow governor Pawlenty.
I would give Jeb Bush a good chance of taking the slot, but that might weaken the party too much. Vice Presidents usually do the best against the opposing party. Either way, I would predict a Pawlenty-Palin ticket to fair about like McCain-Palin did. It would depend upon the turnout in the general election. Close for sure, but I predict that Clinton would beat Obama this time and perhaps have Biden as VP. --SouthWriter (talk) 23:45, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much South :) I úptated the primaries results until now. For the moment I keep the 5 republican candidates, but I think that after the Super Tuesday in March 1, some of them should withdraw. Regards! --Katholico (talk) 07:16, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
Re:Categories
Hey South, no bother at all, it popped up in my daily check of uncategorised pages and it must have been timing more than anything that I beat you to it:) But thanks for the appreciation! FPNow 10% edgier!!! 07:56, April 28, 2016 (UTC)
The British Ain't Coming
Hey South,
You seem like a pretty knowledgable person. You've done great with the European history, and seem like a good contributor (thanks for founding the Religion page, also). I invite you to sign up on the main page to formally contribute to the timeline, as I believe you have great potential if you joined "the team." As a person with a good deal of knowledge and research, and a member of TSPTF, I would vest great trust in your works for the TL. Thanks for taking the time to read.
Thank you, Orange, for your kind words. I will gladly sign on as a regular contributor. I hope that I can do your timeline justice in the limited time I have. I have so many irons in the fire that I can't seem to get much done with any of them. SouthWriter (talk) 15:44, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
Aroostook
Hay Southwriter as you might have seen LG De-Canonized the artical so can I adopt Aroostook if that's ok with you? I completely understand if you say no. The.Brick.Battle (talk) 19:22, May 31, 2016 (UTC)
Please add a section when you post to my talk page. I assume by de-canonize you mean he categorically removed you from the proposal page. Did he also mark you for deletion? Or just delete page outright?
As for adopting Aroostook, I'm not quite ready to relinquish control. You are welcome to edit anytime. It needs some updating. I just put in a new president and vice president who need to be vetted. I have a history of sometimes missing obvious things that disqualify folk in 1983:DD (just ask LG!). SouthWriter (talk) 21:09, May 31, 2016 (UTC)
Ha. Guy removed the proposal template himself and added categories. Fixed it. Was never canon, he just doesn't understand how the concept works. Lordganon (talk) 04:38, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
Categories
By and large, the "KISS" principle. Correct about Europe. As for "Ice Age," saw no point in having a category for one page, since insofar as I am aware there's no other article on the matter anywhere.
I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with re-doing my Acadian Republic as you are a veteran of this Wiki and I have already reformed and redone my doomsday section. I do hope you can help me on this as it does relate to Aroostook The.Brick.Battle (talk) 00:44, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... It looks like this was the final attempt to create a nation-state in played out Maine. Sadly, I don't see any discussion on the prospect of marking it for obsolescence. LG seems to have decided that the there is no plausible way that any of your tiny states would have come into existence. It is not worth arguing for anything new in the area. Both QAA and QSS are well established. You will have to work within the universe that has been established. You need to "cut your losses" and move on. --SouthWriter (talk) 20:55, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
No this page which is small and very self contained also I don't see how a fishing nation http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Republic_Of_Southern_Maine_(1983:_Doomsday) also this won't be a nation state so much as a city state due to the fact that the republic is very closely centered around Ellsworth and Bar Harbor which are centered around Mount Desert island. Also I ask what about the Piedmont Republic because this is what I Losely modeled it after now I ask that you at least please consider at least trying to help me find a way to make a faction in Maine even if it would just be a loosely formed republic which I do plan on having annexed into or unified with Aroostook into a republic of Maine (renamed and reformed Aroostook) But, I guess your final answer is a no. The.Brick.Battle (talk) 01:41, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Brick, it looks like you have worked hard to make this close to plausible. I have added it to the Current Articles Proposals section. All you have to do now is follow this link and then click "Edit" next to the Heading (which links to your article!). That way, you can comment and defend your proposal to the community as a whole. SouthWriter (talk) 02:27, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
Re: Timeline as category?
Hi South.
Per the Conventions in use on the wiki, we don't group all pages in a timeline under the main category, especially when they are also in subcategories. Hope this was helpful, but I'd be happy to explain in more depth if this didn't make much sense. Reximus | Talk to Me! 03:30, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
The Biased Problem
I see your problems with the timeline.
The Fascist Issue: The USA after the civil war becomes increasingly totalitarian and racist after losing to the free states, and 5 decades of anger was built up and some 5 million casualties the Union got some revenge in WWI. However this didn't totally satisfy the Union despite betting the Federal armies in WWI. From 1949-1954 there will be a second civil war in which William Pelley comes to power in the USA pretty much making it a one party state even though having elections between the hard core quasi-Nazi like United America Party and the more "Black Stalinist" Silver Legion Party. Britain becomes fascist for many reasons. Britain losses the Great European War (1957-1962) and the Empire starts collapsing with communist and revolutionary groups sprouting up along with South Africa's newfound preference for the USA (due to racial laws) and Australia breaking away which it had been since the 1920s (I was a bit influenced by AH.com when I was getting into the mid-20th century). Britain falls into a civil war and Eden is shot about a year into the civil war leaving the "Royalist" faction with no leader and it breaking up nearly until an aging Mosley comes in and starts winning battles. The new Unionist faction is then supported by the USA after an American battle fleet arrives in the Isles in 1970.
The FSA's Survival: The FSA wins out due to population, industry, and technology in the civil war. It barely survives WWI despite much of their men mowed down in Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland. In WWII the Federal armies buckle and they are overrun with their buddies, the Canadians.
The "Angry Reporter": I write my timelines kinda like how Indy Neidell from The Great War would say it along with the big body paragraphs of AH.com
Plausibility: I was trying to make it be a plausible way for the North to say "screw it" and break away.
This one is for all not complete timelines: Don't judge it by the date its stuck on.
First, based on the USA coming out ahead in land and keeping the capitol, I'd say they beat back the rebellion. Unlike the civil war in OTL, the rebellion by the northern states was a bloody insurrection. That the man hanged for treason and murder not only became the president of the FSA, but was re-elected in TTL boggles my mind. I cannot see how such a nation would have any support from foreign allies.
As I stated in my remarks on the Timeline Talk Page, I admit I am a bit biased the other direction. However, the chance you took to make the Southern-controlled USA turn into an American version of Nazi Germany is shocking. In OTL, the CSA peacefully seceded, though they "fired upon" federal forces that would not leave when given the opportunity. In OTL there was a significant resistance to invading the South, including a riot that in NYC. I just don't think there was near enough support for John Brown to bring about a democratic republic above the Mason-Dixon line.
The actions of the FSA in WW1 seem to be on the offense instead of a defensive war against an agressive and oppressive USA. It sort of makes sense, though, by NY native Teddy Roosevelt, a military man, against the Americans. In OTL, US president Wilson was a man who wanted to keep America out of that war. But a smaller nation, attacking the nation from which they had successfully separated, just does not make sense.
As for judging the timeline, the fact that you haven't gotten to WW2 is not a factor. I am looking for plausibility in the development of the USA, who you have turned into the "bad guys" even though they ended up allowing the northeast to breakaway. However, if you would break your "big body paragraphs" up, I think it will be easier to follow.
Your history of the British Empire is hard to fit together, so I did not realize that it had gone over to Facism at a later period. Biased as I am to OTL, it seems quite odd that both the USA and Britain would become Fasist, It is against the principles upon which the USA and Britain were built (English Common Law and the US Constitution).
However, keep up the good work. I see no ASB, and you are working hard to put some sort of plausibility to this mess of chaos and confusion. SouthWriter (talk) 04:37, November 12, 2016 (UTC)
Neonotia
The Neonotia page needs updating. Neonotia would have had an election in 2013. Who would have been perdue democartic candinatie. Might I suggest Amy Carter. She was an know poltical avist otl and has the only surriving child of Jimmy Carter She is the only one left to carry the carter family poltical leagy. Do you think it plausalbe for sonny predue f having the neothia army raze the small cuban colony at shavan because he hate the idea of commie takign american soil or would he be he decide it would be unwise to anger cuba Also how do you like the idea have Neonothia holding Unity talk with Georgia Rome some time between 2014 and 2017
Growing up to be a shcool teacher dosn't exculde Amy form being an actvist. She could be a critic of Sonny Predues education polciy and the democratic party could use this to conive her to run for president. I feel that the democrat party would she amy as the prefect canidainte to conter Sonny's suport among people who who enomared with nogostia for the United states. Sonny was only lived in Gerogia but Amy lived in both georgia and Washington DC. Amy was also the daughter of a former american president. PS wamt is thought of about how Govonor Perdue would react to the fact that the cuban reds have built a conly in the runis of shavana.
Thanks for updating Neonotia page. I see that birainD hasn't posted since 2014. He has probbally abbadoned the wiki. I think you should adpote the artictle for georgia Rome. That will give you contorl ove all the georgia surrivor states excpet the defunt athens state. Do you think that georgia rome will stay under the contorl of the republicain party or that some event will shift power to the labor party liberation party or some new party take power. By the way are you going to fhish the Taccoa page
1983 Doomsday
1983 Doomsday is fairly dead but I feel that the timeline has enough potential that it may be worth try to revie the timeline. You put a little life back into it when you followed my suggestion of giving Neonithia a new governor. I hope you contiunie to put life back into doomsday. Perhaps you try to update your Taccoa page. I also hope you consider adopting some articles inative editors like BrainD. .Goldwind1 (talk) 23:44, August 31, 2017 (UTC)
1983: Doomsday Maine
So once again i've written a 4th (I think) nation for Maine. But, I don't want LG to just shoot it down from the start as i have spent 2 weeks doing my research before I wrote it this time. I worked day and night for quite a while so now that i final got to 1990 i decided to ask you for your opinion as the nation will be interacting with Aroostook quite a bit after 1990 even though they made contact in 1985. Here's the link to the google doc: Link Just leave some comments on it and just give me any other feedback you want. If you think it's good enough to become an article in 1983: Doomsday let me know. Thanks. The.Brick.Battle (talk) 15:29, May 3, 2017 (UTC)
Glad that your back
I see you updated yout proffial. I hope you will update one of yout doomsday article Taccoa or PidemontGoldwind1 (talk) 22:23, March 1, 2018 (UTC)
I see you gave hattiesburg a flag. I hope this means you are going to update it some. more. I see you that t you mentioned nataz accord meamber are "full" economic, military and political union by 2013, and adding new meambers like borken bow , hot springs an selmaGoldwind1 (talk) 02:01, March 2, 2018 (UTC)
I'm Back
Hi, so after a long hiatus I’d like to make some new content for the New England area and the United States area of 1983: Doomsday. I’ve noticed that the central part of Maine is mostly untouched and unclaimed. Thus I’d would like to start by adding a small nation there and updating the Aroostook to current times as I don’t think 2015-2018 has been accounted for.Maine Nationalist (talk) 15:18, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
Jive vs Jibe
You meant Jibe - not Jive.
Jive vs. Jibe
People began confusing jive and jibe almost immediately after jive entered our language in the late 1920s. In particular, jive is often used as a variant for the sense of jibe meaning “agree,” as in “that doesn’t jive with my memory of what happened.” This use of jive, although increasingly common, is widely considered to be an error. Jibe, however, is accepted as a variant spelling of an entirely different word, which is gibe (“to utter taunting words”).
Bil
EoGuy
Mesa AZ
EoGuy99 (talk) 03:21, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
Where and when? I certainly don't remember using the term lately. SouthWriter (talk) 04:13, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
1983 Doomsday
Doomsday is not dead but it almost feels like it. I put a little life back in by updating the toledo page. They just had an election and elceted thieir first republican president. I feel that you could put some life into doomsday by updating the pediomneont page. They are sheduled for an election this year11:40, September 21, 2018 (UTC)Goldwind1 (talk)
Appreciation from a South Carolinian
Greetings Henry,
I thank you for the pleasant message. It's always great to recieve compliments and offers of collaboration. I am indeed from South Carolina, and currently reside there in the upstate, specifically Oconee County. I am 25 years of age and it's great to hear from you. Doomsday 1983 is a timeline I've checked out myself though it's 'living' status seems to have fallen behind. Should you have some freetime I know of two areas you can assist with, or rather two areas of greatest possible assistance comes to my mind and should either interest you and you have the time I'll be pleased to work with you.
South Carolina in the National Union America timeline (we can discuss directions for it and notes on the state of SC during what will be Lincoln's 2nd term. Perhaps even figure out how to expand the National Union Party into the state though I imagine such will take some time. Something to consider is that the party is still less then a decade old and still lacks great interest. The Republican party is meant to merge into it, perhaps such can happen during Lincoln's second term. We can certainly discuss the timeline in general. I notice mentions here on your talk page of the Two Americas timeline and thus this seems a topic you may have an interest in.)
Sheheen 2010 while I am not a Democrat in my high school days I supported Vincent Sheheen for Governor. I was brought up not to have a party loyalty and believed him to be best for the state. I started this timeline remembering my enthusiasm back in high school, and that while my dad didn't like Sheheen I myself at that time in my life would have been happy to see him elected. Ofcourse I'd have no idea the role Nikki Haley would play on the world and national stage and I came to appreciate and welcome our governor- I never had anything against her to begin with and the state was better. What I mean in pointing that out is that I want this timeline to be a balanced speculation to answer a what if question I've had- it's not meant to support a political agenda of anykind through speculative fiction but rather to answer a simple question.
Alternatively I welcome all help on the Better 2000s timeline ^_^
Pleased to hear from you, Baron Joshua (talk) 11:22, January 1, 2019 (UTC)
Great to hear from you. Should you decide to contribute in regards to Booth or SC I'll appreciate either. Baron Joshua (talk) 22:48, February 13, 2019 (UTC)
1983 Doomsday Adoption requests
Hello SouthWriter! I saw that you were the creator of the Neonotia page, and I was wondering if I could adopt that page. I really loved the story you wrote for it, and the last entry ended on a very interesting note. I'm interested in possibly continuing in the vein of what you wrote. I recently created a separate article as a proposal for Jimmy Carter, based on what you wrote in the Neonotia article, and obviously both stories would be intertwined in every era of this timeline. I'd love the chance to continue both his story and Neonotia's. I'd also like to ask if you'd be okay with me adopting Hannibal as well. Thanks, and I hope you're doing well! GryffindorKrypton (talk) 02:27, April 3, 2020 (UTC)GryffindorKrypton
Thanks for Hannibal, SouthWriter! No problem about Neonotia, I understand, and thanks for inviitng me to update its timeline! Before I add anything, I'll be sure to bring the ideas to you here first! I also just left a message for you on the Bill Clinton proposal I created. I had seen the discussion from the Arkansas talk page and was planning to draw direct inspiration from that discussion for the Clinton article. I did have some trouble with adding the Proposal template that I could use some assistance with; I left more details on the Bill Clinton talk page.
Neonthia is scheudle an ecletion. Got any one any one in mind for the republican candainte. Do yoy The republican would finally decide they need to apeal to the minoairty and they nomite a black . I hope I won't regret the following suggesttion. Some white supermist who running can't stand the fact the he lost hte naomaation to a black man so he assaintes the nomation and possably James Butler too.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA
unless otherwise noted.
Syngraféas Enallaktikí̱ Istoría, Dic mihi lingua Anglorum. 20:43, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Wingman1 01:06, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Imp (Say Hi?!) 07:50, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
2013 November 25, 03:42 (CET)
United Republic 
21:03, September 10, 2014 (UTC))
02:38, October 11, 2015 (UTC)
Yankee97 
