Hello,

Miranda,

I would like to email you? Do you still use your Real96gmail account? Thanks HistoricDST 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You can e-mail me. Yes, that's the account. Miranda 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if this was intentional, but you misspelled your username in your signature. You have it Miranada. Just thought you should know. i ^(talk) 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. Miranda 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you create an ad similar to Template:Wikipedia ads for WikiProject Environment? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Look at WP:BANNER and see who is available to make a banner for you. Miranda 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to see my message. What is meant to be and what is not... Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia. If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided. All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. I'm sorry I didn't get this to you earlier! I must have missed you when I went through all of the voters! My apologies and thanks for your encouragement! --lincalinca 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly, you wrote, With the IP page creation, we need all of the admins possible. What is the IP page that you're referring to? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Check here. Miranda 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why you hiding from us all ? Nick 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because, I am on a public computer...:-P. Miranda 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

When are you going to undelete my header? Miranda 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

... Miranda 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

File:SonOfPedro.JPG

So sorry. Stick around for all our sakes. Pedro :  Chat  00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When my work is done here, I am leaving for good. I do not deserve to be treated rudely and badly by people who haven't done ANYTHING here except to cause drama. When my work is finished you and others will know. But, as for now, I do not want anyone to bother me, troll on my page, revert my edits, stalk me, etc., except to give me advice in improving my articles. Miranda 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And, this does include reverting vandalism as well as making banners. Miranda 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...saw your name while doing CSD patrol the other day, glad that you're still here. You've always been an uplifting person to have around the wiki. Tijuana Brass 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Miranda. I heard you make WikiAds, could you please make one for WP:DEORPHAN? We need one. Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. And, no. Miranda 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up on working further on the article for The Orange Peel. I have already added more content and I feel it is much better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iderek (talk • contribs)

Sometime in the next day or two, I'd like to create your RfA. Do as you wish with it (preferably that means transclusion after acceptance) but remember that adminship is no big deal, RfA is not the big deal its made out to be, and the tools will help you edit. And it won't take time away from your other work unless you chose it to following the principle that the use of the buttons are voluntary. Okay? Keegan^talk 06:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keegan, mine failed...like a week ago. :-/ Miranda 06:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow, it wasn't even up long enough for me to see it (work...) and my typo on adminship. Given a few months I'd be more that happy to go again, I'm rather surprised reading that. Apologies for that gaff of mine. Keep up your good work, and happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 07:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to respond to your "reasoning" for deleting the "Lizz Robbins" page, which you were successful at doing, it is in the process of being recreated. I did read the pillars carefully, which I wasn't aware of, but now I am, thank you for that reference. However, after reading it, there are quite a few pages that have the same subject that are still a part of wikipedia, what I see is that the page basically needs to be redone to fit the Wikipedia standards. My question to you is if this page was not connected to "Alpha Kappa Alpha", would you have even nominated it? Also, yes I did notice that you edited every AKA page, are you a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.? Some of the information on all the pages you edited need to be tweaked as well, some of the information should not be included on there. Again, I understand the reasoning that you nominated it (reading like a resume, etc.), however, why wouldn't you reach out "in good faith" and assist a fellow member on how to list the page correctly like some of the other "Models" (i.e. Buffie the Body, Tomika Skanes, etc.) Thanks for your time. God Bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksfan4ever (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this for a while, and here are my responses.

1. Wikipedia is not a place to place your personal resume. This is considered a conflict of interest, because the article is not presented in a neutral point of view.
2. Consensus has determined that your biographical article be deleted according to the AFD, shown here.
3. I am not a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. Please stop continuing to assume that. Just because I have access to material regarding the sorority doesn't make me a member. And, if you weren't a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, I would have still done the same thing and nominated your article for deletion. If you want to go to deletion review, go here

Why is the article about other models included, and not me?

Answer: See this.

And, now due to consensus, I have nominated this page for speedy deletion, due to criteria #4 Miranda 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do your research most entertainment articles read like a resume. It is easy to assume that you are a member of the sorority because of the great interest you've taken in it, for the most part only members or potential members have access and/or interested in all the detailed information you've written about the sorority. I have not seen any major edits you've done for any other sorority besides Alpha Kappa Alpha. Some of this information comes straight from our history book unlike the Delta Sigma Theta history book, the AKA History book is not available to the public. The article will continue to be posted and updated according to Wikipedia's guidelines and I continue to learn more about Wikipedia. You seem so determined in keeping it deleted which is why I think your intentions are based more on just what you have previously stated and not based on good faith. If that's the case you would be nominating just about every page for deletion.Knicksfan4ever (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not be deleting every other page. Most entertainment articles don't read like a resume, but have a manual of style that they have to adhere too. As far as the Alpha Kappa Alpha article, why are you following my edits in order to inquire why I edit those articles? May be I am interested in learning the history Alpha Kappa Alpha? Yes, Alpha Kappa Alpha books are available in public libraries, and I have mention Delta Sigma Theta's history book to provide neutrality. Thanks. Miranda 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few pages that don't adhere to that MOS looking at the link you provided but a lot of newbies are not aware of that, nor does it seem that anyone is willing to assist them with how to correctly write an article they just delete it. Which to me is not fair. If you took a look at every entertainment article on Wikipedia, the majority of them do read like a resume (i.e., past history, credits, future work, experience, etc.). I still don't understand your justification.

You seem to be an expert at this looking at your numerous awards and edits are impressive. A lot of other information could be added to the Delta Sigma Theta page as well. Alpha Kappa Alpha's main history book nor it's bylaws are not available in libraries or for sale to the public, but "In Search of Sisterhood" by Paula Giddings of Delta Sigma Theta is. I'm following them just like I've instructed some other sorors including a chapter president to make sure that the information is correct, accurate and up to date so the sorority is not misinterpreted by someone who is not a member. Again, both pages have significantly improved since your edits, so kudos to you on those.Knicksfan4ever (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess what, Wikipedia is censored, so you or your sorors don't have to approve anything related to the page. Please don't focus the attention on me because your article about yourself was deleted. Thank you. Miranda 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The welcome message on your page details how Wikipedia works. I suggest you to read it, before making quick judgments. Every article concerning entertainment does not read like a resume, but is an overview of that persons life. Your article about yourself is not notable for inclusion into Wikipedia, because you don't meet certain criteria. Many people have told you this. Also, I don't appreciate you following my edits or inquiring over my modus operandi, which is assuming bad faith. And, I do not have access to AKA's bylaws, and yes the history book is available to some libraries. Miranda 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, anyone has access and can join wikipedia, which some of my sorors have and they will correct, edit etc, what they see fit, they are members, if the information is not up to the Alpha Kappa Alpha Standards, the page can be disputed if need be. With the community access, just like you felt the need to access and check my edits, the same can be done with your edits especially when it pertains to a members only organization (i.e., you can't access the members page of Alpha Kappa Alpha's national website). Again, with your interest it seems to be more than just curiousity. Don't know which history book you are referring to, I'm positive it's not the official book, maybe you've "borrowed" it from someone. Not focusing the attention on you again, I think it's more to it and not in good faith. Just my opinion, not personal towards you.

Yes, some entertainment articles are an overview of the persons life and others read like resumes. Unless you have been through over thousands of the articles listed on wikipedia you cannot make that assumption period. I have read the welcome message and I am digesting the way this works. I'm trying to figure everything out, you're the expert. About 2 people initially responded to the deleted page, but since I've brought it to the forefront more people have become interested, most of them seem to be in your circle, so I'm sure they aren't going to assist me or give me any favorable opinions, which is unfortunate. There are people that are/were very interested in that article and plan to rework and rewrite as they see fit, just like with any other article on Wikipedia. Have you ever read Andie McDowell's bio? Her article shows you what people can do when they edit and it's really unfortunate when it's malicious. Again, the Lizz Robbins entry did not come to you out of the blue, you found it while attempting to edit the Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters page.Knicksfan4ever (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, how about this? Why don't you quit speculating about where I got the books and access to the sources? It's my personal business, and debating this is a waste of my time. Alpha Kappa Alpha or any other organization for that matter has no ownership over their articles. Yes, Pearls of Service is an official book. Please quit speculating about my edits and come to the conclusion that you are not notable for the encyclopedia. Further drawing this issue out of my and your time. Wikipedia has a set of rules in which articles are notable for inclusion. Not everyone can be included in the encyclopedia. Thank you. Miranda 03:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not speculating, I've already come to a conclusion. No you're right, there is no ownership (the film makers of "Stomp The Yard" thought they could just use fraternity symbols as well), however, anyone can make edits, changes, etc. Since you do not have access to our bylaws, etc, you have no idea the regulations, rules, etc. that are included and the ownership, copyrights etc, that Alpha Kappa Alpha has over the use of it's name, images, etc. You're making it seem really serious, which futher leads me to the conclusion that you've very interested in becoming a member of a BGLO. You've made edits to every BGLO on here. Even some of Alphas and Kappas that I know are reviewing the pages. Again, you are one person and are not the final say on who or what can be included on Wikipedia. It is an array of subjects and just like someone commented to me it doesn't matter how "major" or how "minor" something is, they love to come to Wikipedia to find out more information about that subject when they can whether it's egg shells or oysters. Not trying to turn this into a battle, just stating the facts. Not upset about you deleting the page, the internet is a wonderful source for research, etc., if need be, this page will continue to get updated as more people get involved in the cause.

Pearls of Service is not the official book, it was written because the 26th Supreme Basileus wanted a comprehensive source document in place as a ready reference for planning and marketing Alpha Kappa Alpha’s Centennial. Yes, that book is available to the public, the sorority wants non members to experience and learn about the rich and wonderful history of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Thank you.Knicksfan4ever (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for telling me what I should know about a resource that I have worked on quite sometime. Please do not continue to wonder by questioning my sources or reasons why I edit certain pages that I am interested in improving. It's really scary to me. This is a waste of my time, and I will not comment further on this issue. Goodbye. Miranda 03:57, 28 November 2007

Neither will I, but I will make revisions to something that I do know and have known for over 10 years. It would be scary if I wasn't a member of the orginization. It is scary that you aren't a member of any BGLO and show so much interest.... Goodbye to you. Need to start working on edits and starting new pages... Take Care and God BlessKnicksfan4ever (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a Wikistalking of Miranda warning on Knicksfan4ever's talk page. Hopefully, that will end the matter. If not, please let me know. -- Jreferee t/c 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joanna Mary Berry Shields, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Miranda/sandbox/sandboxf. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh! Miranda 07:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did you have your page deleted? Are you leaving? IF the answer was yes, please don't, we need great people here! <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear God! :O Is this a leaving message? If so, please don't, your lack of contributions to Alpha Kappa Alpha article is all we need. Best, — Rudget _speak.work 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you reconsider, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see if I can help out with any of these problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stay. I have suggested relisting them separately. See my comment on the afd page. I know you do not agree with everything I have said previously, but i have been trying to give the best advice I could, and i would certainly be able to support many of the article--and so would others. Please stay and defend them properly. There is an obvious injustice being done in considering them together. It is never the best course to leave, rather than to stay and try for the best possible compromise. Protest does better if one stays and continue it in appropriate ways. Some of this should be on wikia, and some on Wikipedia. You are doing an injustice to the memory of these pioneers if you do not do the best for them possible. I have the highest possible respect for Tim. Please contact him and consider his suggestions. You can reach me by email if you like. DGG (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stay. I understand your frustration. I supported keeping the articles on the sorority and individuals, and have some ideas for how to strengthen this article (and they relate to articles on individuals as well), found a few more sources (although don't have most of the books, but there is a recent one that looks perfect) and rewritten the first paragraph in a direction that may strengthen it. Will work on more this weekend, but wanted to let you, futurebird, CJ and others know, so you could see if it is along the lines you're thinking of. (Will check other names from the RfD too.)--Parkwells (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restructured this article and added some new info that might be a useful model for others working on the founders of Alpha Kappa Alpha. Added a couple of new sources and found another academic one that may be useful. It's taken a while, but could be easy to adapt for others. Mostly I tried to make it more like resumes.--Parkwells (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior is being discussed on ANI. Miranda 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this, I have responded in regard to your behavior as well. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - I don't think you can summarily delete tags for deletion. Cbdorsett (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Rosetta Burke, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosetta Burke. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cbdorsett (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I will withdraw my opposition to Rosetta Burke if you will make the article as good as C. Delores Tucker. This does not end my opposition to your tactics. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't have to do anything that you say. I can let the community decide. It looks like a keeper for now. Also, please assume good faith. I don't have tactics. I follow the rules. Miranda 14:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion at this AfD, there is no reason to discuss the matter in the tone that you have done. I was almost ready to close the debate per WP:SNOW, but your comments seem to have inflamed the situation. Please read WP:NAM, which may help you place some perspective on the matter. Please have a blessed holiday season. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1.) He is not a newcomer and has been here since Jan. 2007 2.) He has tagged many articles for db-spam/bio and were overturned. 3.) I don't care if the AFD is not Snowed. Miranda 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm that guy who vandalized your userbox or whatever. Also, I'm not ST47. 71.172.26.174 (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. But please don't do it again or be blocked. miranda 06:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Miranda. This may seem a bit odd or unwarranted to you, but I’m here to apologise. Having looked back, I noticed that I’ve always been a bit abrupt, harsh, whatever you want to call it, with you, both on wiki and on IRC. For that I would like to apologise. You are one of the few people on this project who have this encyclopaedia’s goal at heart…and not Veropedia’s. Keep it up :) Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I address comments in the Knitta link you put on Lara's page? I've never been to GA, so I don't know if these questions are rhetorical or not, haha. the_undertow ^talk 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure :-D miranda 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea. We're just waiting. Whenever you're ready. Lara❤Love 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Miranda/Knitta has hit the trash can by your request. — E ^talk 08:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why make comments at RFA, and take it personally when I try to help? What in the world did I do? I know I'm going to sound like Dr. Phil when I say this, but if you truly have a problem, why not say it now? 66.66.76.132 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I would appreciate if you stopped trolling on my page, as seen here. Second, I highly believe that you have an account on Wikipedia, but you decide to edit anonymously in order to hide your identity. Third, we have an encyclopedia to work on and not using this encyclopedia as a psychotherapy exchange. So, the moral of the story is for you to worry about yourself and not intimidate others on their faults. miranda 04:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First, whether I have an account on here or not is irrelevant for the matter, and finally, I apologize for my actions. 66.66.76.132 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For not caring what people think of you — Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

She does care. Miranda, your bad faith assumptions are pathetic. This is deja vu of the situation you alerted me to with the member of AKA that was having issues with your edits of the article. You cried foul, saying she was a troll and should be blocked. In looking over everything, all her contribs to the article and your respective talk pages, she had been completely civil and polite and you were taking everything she said with a bad faith view. That's sad. And what's worse was the way you were treating her. Completely unacceptable. It's people like you that make this project more stressful than it has to be. And just like I told you then, your behavior is uncalled for. Your diffs in Giggy's RfA are irrelevant. He's done nothing wrong. But you're too pissed off at me and the GA situation to see that. Judgment clouded by anger. Something you seem to have an issue with. You rejected his apology here, removing it from your talk page because you can't even read an apology in good faith. And then you say he's proven your point in his RfA, that doesn't even make sense. How you can read bad faith into that response is beyond me. You need to reevaluate your temperament and how it meshes with Wikipedia. I await your "okay" or simple removal of this message from your page. Regards, Lara❤Love 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This could've been done the easy way. This was an attack that only served to create drama (drama from another project at that). John Reaves 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack. Re-read. He did not attribute my work. See NPA. I am asking another administrator to restore. Contribute to the encyclopedia by writing, John, and stay away from my mainspace or affairs. Also, ask Nick to apologize too, and maybe I will drop the incident.miranda 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Miranda, this isn't about admins not wanting "the truth to be known". It's a matter of civility. You've already gone behind him on Commons talk pages and credited yourself with the creation of the banner. Plenty of editors have issues with you, but you don't see us creating banners and spamming our talk pages with links about said issues. As usual, you need to calm down and take your own advice. It's totally not a big deal. It's a banner. And for the record, I endorse the deletion of your pointless and inflammatory subpage. You also need to remove the uncivil comments/links, in my opinion. Lara❤Love 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He did attribute your work. You can even see it in the deletion log. John Reaves 00:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

NPA dictates comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. The page was an attack. Had you not hyperlinked, you would have been left with a smarmy, yet innocuous page, but the diffs bring take the subpage out of the category of frustration and into one of an isolated incident, user, and template. If you do not agree, perhaps you should just post your intent of the page itself and how it does not apply to NPA. the_undertow ^talk 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

God, this is yesterday's news. He did attribute me in the deletion log, once I told him of the incident, and another person told him of the incident. I will remove the links, just get over it please, and do something constructive like, perhaps, creating articles? miranda 01:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, an apology from Nick would be nice as well. miranda 01:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that is going to happen. Now you do something constructive and stop trying to create drama and go back to your ever so valuable sorority articles. John Reaves 01:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This little dif. is included to the archives. miranda 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First, the picture was placed in the section "How a case moves through the Court". What exactly did that picture have to do with that? Nothing whatsoever; that was why I decided it did not belong in that section. Second: it was not a picture of, as you describe in my talk page, "a sitting President and Vice President with members of SCOTUS", so please do not mischaracterize it. They were not sitting President and Vice-President at the time of the meeting. Thirdly, adding a picture is as much a "drastic" and "opinionated" change as it is removing it, especially when it is added to a section with which it has nothing to do. So, why should the return to the status quo ante require a discussion, but the addition of extraneous material (however rare) not require it? I'm perfectly happy to discuss it in the talk page: please explain what it has to do with how a case moves through the Supreme Court, or what it adds or does not add to the article. Magidin (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1.) Other people agree with me. This isn't just "your encyclopedia." You could have moved the picture elsewhere in the article instead of just blatantly deleting the picture in article. Wikipedia has few notable pictures at the moment. And when people (i.e. schoolchildren) look at the SCOTUS article, they generally look at Wikipedia first.

2.) If you would have taken a civics class or a political science class in school, there is a direct relationship between SCOTUS and the executive branch. Have you heard of "checks and balances"? We just had an example of SCOTUS and the executive branch's relationship occur this past Tuesday (and yesterday, privately, if I do believe).

3.) They are the sitting POTUS and VPOTUS now. Another opportunity for them both to be pictured with the SCOTUS would be extremely rare, depending if someone decides to retire.

4.) Actually, it should be in the Presidential nomination section, but another picture already exists there. I will move that picture of the court to that section to avoid overcrowding.

Thank you. miranda 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I say it was "my encyclopedia"? No. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. You say: "Other people agree with me". I've seen only one comment on the talk page so far, and that comment disagreed with you. Nobody else has added the picture after it was removed. Perhaps they will step up later. Yes, there is a relationship between SCOTUS and the executive branch, but this photograph does not advance understanding of it, does not illustrate it, does not do anything except show a nice picture. How does this picture help this imaginary person taking a civics class or a political science class in school? How does it relate, or how does it exemplify, "checks and balances"? It doesn't. Yes, it would be rare for them to be pictured with SCOTUS. So? How does rarity become an argument for inclusion of a picture in an inappropriate section? I do not believe it belongs in the Presidential nomination section either: the picture has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of a president nominating a justice to a vacancy. Again: nice picture, no doubt about it, but what does it add to the article beyond clutter?

Each and every picture currently in the article is directly related to the section in which it appears (or it was, until you moved the picture of the current court into the section of "How a case moves through the Court", where it doesn't belong; I've moved it back). They are not placed simply for visual impact, but to help illustrate and expand on the text. The picture you want to add currently has no supporting content whatsoever. And the meaning you are attempting to put into it is simply not there: it does not illustrate "checks and balances", it does not illustrate the "direct relationship between SCOTUS and the executive branch" (this relationship being that the executive branch nominates justices, and executes the rulings), it has nothing to do with the Oath of Office to which you allude. It was, by all accounts, a courtesy visit. So, nothing to do with civics, checks and balances, oaths of office, etc. If you want to add a section on the relation between the branches, or on other material on which this picture would be directly relevant, by all means, go ahead and do so with appropriate citations. But just throwing in pictures for the sake of throwing in pictures, or moving them around so we have a nice looking page regardless of content does not advance the article; nor is throwing in everything and the kitchen sink into an explanation of meaning, when that meaning is simply not there. In fact, it takes away from the article. Magidin (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I basically don't give a fuck about it anymore. You seem to have an issue about the picture and are too ignorant to see the relevance. Since you are owning the article, I basically don't give a fuck about this lame edit war. miranda 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have an issue with the picture, I have a problem with the addition of extraneous material to sections with which they have no connection. The picture itself is pretty nice, and Supreme Court junkie that I am I love it. I just don't see what it has to do with the Procedures of the Supreme Court, or with the nomination process of Supreme Court justices, or with separation of powers, or with checks and balances, and you have not made a case for it. You yourself talked about seeking consensus on the talk page; I presented my reasons for removing the picture after you objected, without removing the picture, and the picture was removed by a different editor. I did not see you seeking consensus, however: you simply said "I disagree" and added it back, giving no reason, substantial or otherwise, to justify its inclusion. Nor did I engage in personal attacks, as you just did. If I am, by your reckoning, just "too ignorant" to see the relevance, why did you not provide a coherent explanation of this relevance? Just saying "civics", "separation of powers", "if you would have taken a civics class" (are you insinuating I didn't?), "it's rare", does not provide relevance. And calling me ignorant or uneducated does not substitute for seeking consensus or for providing relevance. Magidin (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)