It seems to be that it would be useful to include a link to the Honduran constitution in general, and to Section 239 in particular.

The editor suggests that certain actions by the President (Zelaya) were declared unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court, but that the constitution provides no provisions by impeachment, in this case for acts that some might view as an attempted coup by Zelaya against his own government.

My main contribution here is a quotation from Blackstone from 1758. Blackstone had tremendous influence on the development of law in the early United States and in England as well, although in England mostly as a popularizer. If Blackstone has had similar direct or indirect influence in Honduras, this may be of interest.

" NEXT, as to cases os ordinary public oppression, where the vitals of the constitution are not attacked, the law hath also assigned a remedy. For, as a king cannot misuse his power, without the advice of evil counsellors, and the assistance of wicked ministers, these men may be examined and punished. The constitution has therefore provided, by means of indictments, and parliamentary impeachments, that no man shall dare to assist the crown in contradiction to the laws of the land. But it is at the same time a maxim in those laws, that the king himself can do no wrong; since it would be a great weakness and absurdity in any system of positive law, to define any possible wrong, without any possible redress.

Blackstone, The RIGHTS of PERSONS, BOOK I, Ch. 7. (circa 1758) "

Of course the key here is that no democratic leader has the powers of an English king in Blackstone's time. I would argue that the key point is that when a democratic leader abuses his power in an extreme way, as defined by Section 239, then it is implicit in the Constitution that the Congress and Supreme Court be able take appropriate action to rectify the abuse of power.

I gather from the news that the Honduran Congress has apparently already done the equivalent of voting articles of impeachment followed by conviction on those articles of impeachment, although after Zelaya had already been kidnapped and sent out of the country. At the very least he should have been able (or should be able in the future) to confront his accusers.

Julyx (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I am in agreement with you that that Counterpunch material belongs in the theory section. My major motivation in moving the Preventing Continuismo section there was to avoid someone just deleting it as POV as I believe it is valuable information (and similar material has been deleted in many previous edit wars). I don't mean to use "theory" as pejorative but rather in the academic sense as overarching explanation, e.g. free market theory, etc. Perhaps just plain "Analysis" would have been better? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather new to Wikipedia so you will have to forgive me if I make errors. I live in San Pedro Sula,Cortes,Honduras. I see various errors in the article and the article lacks neutrality, especially the writers opinion that anti Zelaya or those who claim this is not a coup is a small minority and I can back this up with pictures and sources that substancially verify this is not the case. I also take issue with the title as not being neutral or accurate. It will take me quite awhile to review all of the information and discuss at length what is right or wrong or biased. One thing that immediately stood out to me is that Juan Pablo II BLVD is not in Tegucigalpa and elicited a bit of amusement from me and others that live in Honduras. It was sort of like CNN not being able to accurately point out where Tegucigalpa is located on a map. Juan Pablo II is a circle type Blvd that is located in San Pedro Sula and circles the inner city like a loop highway it is frequently known as circumvilacion. Also, the writer says that the largest pro Micheletti demonstration was in Choluteca. That is absolutely false since the demonstration in Choluteca(where my mother in law lives) was 25,000 people approximately and demonstrations in San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa have numbered from 35,000 all the way up to 150,000. This clearly suggests that the group is not a minority but indeed a majority.

So if allowed I would like to take some time and look at the article to see how it can be corrected for lack of neutrality, which is obvious and work on correcting errors like the few that I pointed out above. I am not yet adept enough to do the edits myself since this is my first one. So if someone can help me with making the corrections as they come across I would be greatful.----LaGringaSPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaGringaSPS (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about noting the same issue you did - that there is not a global concensus on the status of Taiwan. However I chose to leave it off for the sake of brevity. Actually the fact that there is not consensus over the issue of Taiwan strengthens my position. (Since Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral position on this divisive issue). Here we have an issue where there is nearly universal global consensus. It is much clearer how to handle than Taiwan. But bravo for clear thought.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll claim a slight privelege. I've got 29 years of experience with Honduras, since before it had this constitution. I don't live there now, but I have in the past, as part of my research. I've met Zelaya, and am friends with one of his cabinet members. I don't think anyone is a saint, but I do think he honestly wanted to do, and was doing good, for the bloque popular. There's a new article out there in Spanish (google news, spanish edition, European Press Photo agency, I can't remember if you can read Spanish but its not in english yet, soon on my wife's and my blog at hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com ) quoting Aristides Mejia as saying Zelaya doesn't want to return to power at this point, that all he wants is for an internationally recognized democratic transition. He's served his term, and with the time left, he couldn't do anything more. We may not always agree, but you've showed you're intelligent and can read, which is better than the automatons that perform the same edits over and over again, only to have them undone. I'm always willing to help you find something out, if I can. Rsheptak (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rsheptak, i'm sorry to tell you that you are bad informed and clearly does not know Zelaya too well. I'm sorry to tell you the the ONLY one in charged to do things like the so called Encuesta was the "Tribunal Supremo Electoral", that's another of the many reasons why the encuesta was illegal. And i'm sorry to tell you but the poll was binding because Zelaya published a decree on the "Gaceta" 3 or 4 days before june 28, when he published that, it made the encuesta totally binding, please investigate better what happened and if not, go buy a time machine and go back in time to janury 2008 so you can follow step by step all what happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honduras#.22Encuesta.22 Vercetticarl (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back and reviewed all the writings about the encuesta. I know what was going on; I've read the court decisions in full; and I know Honduran law. Educate yourself instead of being scared. Rsheptak (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there ... I wanted to let you know your recent edits to Night Court have been undone. While I believe you are acting in good faith, it seems to miss the point of the section. This area only mentions the actors/actresses who appeared in the opening credits, as well as when they did so. It doesn't go into the "why," a subject that is covered later in "Cast changes". The numerous public defenders' reasons for leaving aren't discussed here, either, by comparison. If you have any questions, please leave them at the article's talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently moved Cordoba House to Park 51. Unfortunately the latter name is incorrect, as per the article and its sources the proper location should be Park51. Could you please make the move and correct the subsequent incorrect and double redirections? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And *yet again* i've removed it. You are arguing his case in the results section. This is the place for results, not news ltd sensationalism. By all means detail Crook's page with all the info, but let's keep the results page for just that, results, not arguing partisan cases. Timeshift (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zachary Klaas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"referred to by means of the misnomer." I LOVE IT. Great use of passive voice to avoid unnecessary argument in the lede. Well done. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You're sitting on top of the Park51 article to make sure you get your POV across?24.6.207.95 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think the article in it's current shape is quite excellent. Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a little more assumption of good faith. It's not my job to add citations to unreferenced material you edit in. When the IP deleted the material as unreferenced you should have fixed it rather than simply reverting. On another note, I'm not sure Matt Sky passes WP:NOTABLE and I've raised the issue here. Best, NickCT (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to avoid having the coalition title for state results that aren't NSW/Vic? It seems unnecessarily pointless and bulkier to have the coalition heading for a single party. If you're worried of confusion, the coalition heading in the Australia table up the top is quite sufficient for the reader IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's appropriate. The consensus was for the results to be represented identifying which parties are in the Coalition. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's been done already. States with no coalition has absolutely nothing to do with it. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what justification? Image pages are specifically designed for this purpose. Timeshift (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that Dr. Carr's page is a general reference for these kinds of maps for elections all around the world, on the basis that he specifically asked to be credited for the maps, and on the basis that people will not see the credits on the image pages unless they click to research the image. Also, Dr. Carr seems to have a problem with you, so it's not unreasonable to surmise you might want to hide the credits for his work to get back at him somehow. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a POV issue interfering with your editing. It is basic practice on wikipedia for credits to appear on the image's page, not in captions of the image. This is what you need to answer. Timeshift (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. Dr. Carr specifically asked to be credited on the talk page. The pictures are not in the public domain and he wants people to know they come from him. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And per the wikipedia standard, the image pages credit him. You have no standing on making such image caption changes. Timeshift (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per common sense, if Dr. Carr is not satisfied he is getting appropriate credit, he could decide not to let us use the pictures. I think an acknowledgement on the page itself will be seen and is responsive to his request. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that Dr Carr is not satisfied he is not getting appropriate credit? Timeshift (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of this conversation. If you want to be petty enough to remove the external link, go ahead. I'll resist the change, but on the talk page of the affected article, not off here on my talk page where no one can see it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, I know how touchy you get when people revert your edits, so I thought I'd drop by your talk page and point out that this edit looks mighty like WP:SOAPBOXing. Perhaps a self-revert is in order. NickCT (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dude,

It's an RS source, relevant to the page being edited. If you have a problem with me, that's your business. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combative as usual. Klaas, if this is how you get along with people who sympathize with your POV, I shudder to think how you cope with those who don't.

I'm sure you appreciate that something can be source & relevant yet still be WP:SOAPBOXing. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Share your comments with the group, or leave me alone. I consider this bullying. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I think you're being combative, and failing to assume-good-faith, but as you invite me to avoid your talk page, I shall comply. Feel free to delete this discussion if you feel it mars your page. NickCT (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lawlz. When should I start making the edits? :) Timeshift (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zachary. Thanks for your quick edit and comment:

• Opponents and some others" gives legitimacy to an incorrect term; we should use "named" instead of "dubbed" for Park51, because that is not just something the media cooked up to call it.

I agree entirely, and have enjoyed working with you (I hope the "move" sticks). --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am doing my best with that page. Ain't easy.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I believe the enclosing brackets indicate sic is not part of the quote, as indicated in the sic article. But I'm not troubled enough to revert again. Fletcher (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It says it can also appear after the quote in round brackets. I'll do that. Gotta follow the format.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Talk:Sic#Move_to_Wiktionary. I thought it was sorta funny given our previous discussions. P.S. Just so we're all clear, the above is in no way intended as a personal attack/assault or anything of that nature. NickCT (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And no offense taken. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the same 2 rules you like. I never take a matter to noticeboards, but the plain fact is this guy Ford has been attacked viciously on this article for at least 21 months and lotsa of the stuff in his article would not make it into other BLPs. Its just that he is one of the most "politically incorrect" person in politics. Have a look at the response on the BLP noticeboard.[1] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted on the Noticeboard myself. I think there is probably room to work something out about how to fix the obviously out-of-bounds edits and provide balance while at the same time representing that Ford is decidedly just that, extensively "politically incorrect".  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding the text to the original "ref" part and then adding the link following a <br>, still within the ref.Lihaas (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, we were coming along to an accomodation though discuss. Instead of warring on a version, i suggested disecting the controversy out. Why did you reinsert 1 version against the other, theres no consensus on either version yet (except the first sentence)Lihaas (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Klass,

In an attempt to keept he RfC tidy I deleted your comment and added an example of someone voting for A. If you object, feel free to re-add your comment. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template, Australian federal election, full results, 2004. Since you had some involvement with the Template, Australian federal election, full results, 2004 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nonviolent resistance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libyan Civil War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2014 (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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating La Réforme, Zachary Klaas!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to create this - it's appreciated. It's now been reviewed and has had some improvement tags added. If you have the time, could you look it over and see if you can help address any of the issues raised in the tags? Thanks again for your hard work.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not retaining that; was about to reinsert. Humanengr (talk)<

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Generation Z shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Some1 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using the "stop" symbol and then speaking as if you institutionally represent Wikipedia, instead of being a contentious editor trying to scare other people away from editing a page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were in fact WP:Edit-warring on the article: [2] reverts [3][4][5]. One more revert and you would've broken the three-revert rule (3RR). Nothing contentious about it; this is all Wikipedia policy. Some1 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you're the kind of person who ignores that I took your advice and raised the issue on the talk page, and instead comes back to my user talk page to bait me so it looks like I'm the one with issues. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian federal election, full results, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]