Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by typing four tildes at the end of your post. I may reply to your messages on your user talk page as well as this page. I may not reply in a timely manner but will attempt to reply appropriately to messages. Thank you. Moss&Fern (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the section. Pushing the Birther agenda with nonsense about different legalities of the forms, and the future of such differences, is a Birther platform push. EVEN if I AGF that it's not, speculative discussion of what MIGHT happen violates WP:FORUM. If you really think there's something worth writing, go write it and brign it to the talk page for discussion. ThuranX (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the section even once before removing it twice?

I wrote nothing about legalities so I could hardly have written "nonsense about different legalities of the forms". Perhaps you should read what I wrote and ask me to be more specific or clarify rather than rush to delete. My interest is about information such as parental occupations, ages, place of their births which these newer to me forms do not or may not contain and how that pertains to genealogical research and information.

If you are going to use acronyms such as AGF I suggest you state what they stand for before the first use or provide a link. I didn't see where speculative discussion violates WP:FORUM. I do see where your reversions violate WP:FORUM as they were done to advocate a position you hold and/or suppress something you imagined to be in conflict with your position. It appears you acted on a pretext to interject a position on a controversial subject where no discussion of the subject existed. If you were acting in good faith, perhaps you should calm down and consider whether you're beginning to see "a Birther under every bed"?

"If you 'really' think there's something worth writing, go write it and brign it to the talk page for discussion." is offensively dictatorial. It's proper for someone to suggest a topic may merit discussion without intending to write on that topic. While there are times I discuss something on the talk page before editing the article or deciding not to edit it, it's inappropriate for you to imply I need to write on the talk page and seek permission before editing an article.

If you really think what I wrote was pushing an agenda furnish a link to where I can find a neutral party to read it and offer any appropriate suggestions. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM prohibits discussion of the subject itself instead of the article about the subject. Your contributions show a long history of editing political topics. You suddenly decide we need a section in Genealogy about the relative legal strength of Short or Long Forms of Birth Certificates. It's not too hard to see a connection to the Birther movement. I suggest you take it to Birth Certificates. They might be interested in your questions, as none of it has any relevance to Genealogy. ThuranX (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote.

== What have been effects of changes in Birth and Death Certificate forms? ==

-

- I was just reading about "long form" and "short form" US birth certificates and think there are corresponding forms of death certificates. Apparently the "short forms" have been around for quite awhile though I haven't been aware of them. What effect is this change having on genealogical research? What effect is this expected to have in the future for genealogical research? -- Moss&Fern (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can see about a "section in Genealogy about the relative legal strength of Short or Long Forms of Birth Certificates". Nothing about "relative legal strength of Short or Long Forms of Birth Certificates". Nothing about relative legal strength of different forms of Death Certificates either. Please quote whatever you think supports your statements and objections. Please consider engaging in potentially productive discussion with other editors when you think you perceive a problem. You have caused me to think that if I add the section in talk again it should include other records of vital statistics, address a longer historical span and other forms than cerificates such as registries. However that isn't because you made helpful suggestions or raised relevant issues; it's simply because you returned my attention to the article. If you read the article on Genealogy and what I wrote above about occupations, ages and such, you may see why this is relevant to the subject and possibly even agree such changes in sources of information are significant to genealogical research and may deserve more information in the article. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Let's assume you're totally genuine. the answer is NOTHING. Genealogists can get either form via FOIA. All genealogy done for family tree purpsoes only can achieve just about everything for vital stats with a short form, they can, if lucky, get addresses and a doctor's name off the long form. A better question, which is already discussed, is that many states have laws about the privacy protection on such forms, and in light of identiyy theft, laws have been passed preventing the release of 'newer' forms from being released for genealogy. If you want to cover that, go for it. There was a big campaign about 3, 4 years ago to prevent genealogical research from being effectively shut down in this country by the passage of some 'security' based laws. Most of that material failed, and most research continues just fine. If you'd like to work on that topic, go for it. But bringing up the SHort Form and Long Form, and demanding we enumerate their differences and the 'difficulties' sounds a lot more like a 'let's get Hawaii and Obama' rant. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]