User talk:Digiphi

Welcome Write a new message. I will reply on this page, unless you request otherwise.

good luck, and have fun.'' --Malke 2010 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments
This is acceptable because the IP user in question is a banned user,, a user whose edits to any Obama-related article are to be removed on sight. Next time I will make that a part of the edit summary though, so it is clear why the user's comments were removed. My apologies for the confusion. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. That makes sense. -Digiphi ( Talk  )

TPM
Hi Digiphi, We don't want the tea party rallies on the TPM page. That is duplication and the TPM page is getting too large as it is. (It's at 98 kilobytes now. Too big.)  This has already been discussed in some detail last winter/spring. Please revert your edit. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, note that at the top of the TPM page there is a link to the other page Tea Party protests. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom Emmer
Hi Digiphi - the statement of "..lower mininum wage..." was not mine. It had been there for some time before, I just reverted back what it was before. It should have been removed. Thanks for doing that... Dinky town  talk  21:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

JPMcGrath and Gun Laws in the United States (by state)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapier (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement tags
I must ask you to revert your restoration of some of the verify credibility tags there. OpEd's are reliable sources for the author's opinion; if it's clearly attributed and in an "opinion" or "commentary" section of the article, the statements are sufficiently noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is exactly why I and (ostensibly) whoever originally added the tags believe they are appropriate. It's not the verifiability of the source that's in question, but the way it's being used to support content in the article.


 * This is what I propose. The changes that have either been made, or have been proposed (arranging them within an "opinions" section and adding attribution), would and do satisfy the controversy and therefore remove the need for tags. However, it keeps going back and forth, and the "Opinions" Section fix is destined to be undone, and redone, and back again. Let's poll for clear consensus to close that debate. If consensus to go ahead with the "Opinions" Section fix is developed, then we can remove those tags and focus our edits on enforcing the rule of the consensus and maintaining the fix. If consensus does not develop, then the back and forth continues, as well as the debate on the discussion page, and the tags would need to remain. -Digiphi ( Talk  ) 17:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about "Gods, Guns and Gays" in TPM Talk
Come on, you can't just bluff your way through these things. The source explicitly contradicts your claim. Why do you keep repeating it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We can keep discussing it in the discussion section, on the talk page, where we've been discussing it. We're not migrating the discussion to my talk space. -Digiphi ( Talk  ) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: for the benefit of anyone observing this talk space, the article discussion section we're referring to can be found here. -Digiphi ( Talk  )

Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995
You write that some States exempt people with out of State permits from the Federal GFSZA. You are thinking of exemptions for State GFSZA's in places that have them such as California and Texas. As the Federal law is currently written, there is no way for a State to provide an exception to an out-of-State permit holder unless they do an individual background check of the individual and issue them a non-resident permit. The only State in the country which has made any special attempt at exempting a person from Federal GFSZA 1995 is Montana. States don't have the authority to exempt someone from Federal Law. The law has an exception which is triggered under certain circumstances, this is different from the State exempting a person. The State never exempts a person, sometimes a person is exempt as the result of meeting federal requirements through a State permit process. I have researched this law extensively for several years and have spoken with several U.S. Senators regarding it. My interpretation is correct. There is a very lengthy discussion on the subject here http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/7837-concealed-carry-reciprocity-currently-banned-under-federal-law-important.html MoonOwl2010 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, some states do specifically exempt both holders of permits issued under their authority and holders of other states' permits which they recognize, applying state law uniformly to both groups. In its letter BATFE disputes the legal standing of state governments to exempt permit holders in the way that the texts of the laws declare. BATFE is not a legislative body, but has published its interpretation of laws in a legal advisory. BATFE is relevant to gun politics so we can certainly include its published opinion in the article. It doesn't change the facts that the GSFZA is written the way it's written, or that that state legislatures have also made laws. -Digiphi ( Talk  ) 18:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you cite the State laws that specifically address the Federal GFSA? As far as I know, Montana is the only one that declared all citizens to be "licensed" by the State for GFSZA purposes. Because of the supremacy clause in the US Constitution, States can't override Federal law. Take Medical Marijuana in California for example. The State of California can make it legal to possess marijuana under State law, but DEA is still free to arrest everybody for violating Federal Law. Please read the discussion at USA carry, we would value your input. If you read the Federal GFSZA law carefully, you see that the States aren't given authority to exempt a person. A person is only exempt if they meet one of the requirements to be exempt. Many people argue that if you have a Missouri CCW and you travel to Texas you are "licensed by Texas." ATF disagrees with this point, but even if we assume the federal judge agrees you are "licensed" you still don't get the exception unless the law enforcement authorities of the State you are visiting conducted a background check... and not only that they conducted the check, but the law of the State must also REQUIRE them to conduct the check before issuing the "license." So in a State that recognizes all out of State permits, there is absolutely no way a person can argue that the law of the State required, and the authorities performed an individual background check before issuing the "license" to carry. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * MoonOwl2010, thank you for the comments. Because this is edit is obviously disputed, I've moved it to the article discussion section, where other editors may comment on it. It's policy that everyone editing the article be able participate in the discussion, and discussions are supposed to take place on the article talk page. I've transferred your comments here, in proper order, to the new section on the article talk page. Also per policy, I've reverted your edit for the time being, until consensus develops in discussion. -Digiphi ( Talk  ) 19:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Per policy shouldn't it be reverted to the way I wrote it a while back before you disputed it? ;) I would love to talk with you more about this issue, as I'm sure we can agree to its importance... and I'm sure we both agree that an amendment is needed. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

hello
Hey Digiphi, sorry you're on wikihold right now. You know you can ask to get the block lifted, right? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. I just got home, and then saw the notice. I am aware of the appeal process. I'm pretty embarrassed and I do dispute it. I'm going to write up the appeal here and submit it pretty soon. Right now I'm a very unhappy camper. When I'm back in action we can get to work on mediation or whatever was decided over at TPM. -Digiphi ( Talk  ) 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey. I noticed this in my watchlist. diff. That's very uncool. In the mediation process we decide if we go ahead with the proposed removal of that passage. We don't implement bold edits while they're being discussed. Bold, edit, revert standard is that they are reverted and held in limbo pending the development of consensus to go ahead with the edit. What gives? Is anyone else unhappy with this? -<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 02:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that it's not cool to keep disputed text up while there's mediation. Nobody will be harmed if they don't immediately encounter "grassroots". However, there is a serious neutrality problem with making this claim while there are so many reliable sources to the contrary. If mediation rejects those sources, then things will change.
 * In any case, when you return from this block, you will have your chance to state your concerns as part of mediation. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It's been settled on the article page. Everything's kosher and cool. -<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page stuff
Hi Digiphi, I just read your unblock and the admins response. I wanted to mention yesterday that you should not remove things from your talk page. You're allowed to do that, but it's better if you don't. I used to do the same thing, but I've been taught by a very wise admin not to do that. Also, I wanted to mention, the admin who blocked you, Magog the Ogre, is a very cool admin and he did you a big favor by giving you that warning template. If you want to keep your talk page from too many posts, put in an archive bot.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the other thing you can do is to "hat" stuff. You put in the code to collapse the thread.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I know. Wisdom: assimilated. - <font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement
Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Ham tech  person  00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ham tech  person  18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC) ^^ The answer to your question Ham  tech  person  01:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC) ^^

Opening Statement
Hi Digiphi,

Please go to this page and put in your "opening statement." . Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Well said, Digiphi. You could be a mediator yourself.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you ma'am. It's always nice to hear from the fans ;D
 * You're sweet, and your cat is nice, too. I really enjoyed talking to him/her.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SIDE NOTE: You sounded like a lawyer (and not a WP:LAWYER, thank god) in your opening statement. Are you actually one? <font color="BLUE">Ham tech person  01:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I work with attorneys and often play attorney myself, among other roles. I wear several hats at work. —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 06:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * HAMTECH: how's this going to work? Because there's obviously uncertainty. See below. Are you just acting in the role of moderator to keep things structured and moving forward? Or is this like an arbitration in which we're presenting you with arguments so you can make a judgement? Please advise. --Digiphi 19:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A little of both. You will present arguments and evidence, and I will come up with a judgement, but it will be in no way binding. I want to streamline this so that one person does not get lost in debate between two editors, and so that it does not become meaningless ramble. Ham  tech  person  01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Digiphi, please go over to the mediation page and put in your response. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Digiphi, regarding your response at the mediation cabal, it's probably best to make an argument based on what you want to see done, rather than offering a critique of what you perceive the others want to see done. It's easier for the mediator if you just say whether or not you want the term in the lede and then give your rationale to support your view.  Not an expert, just a suggestion.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nillagoon expressed the same, and I'm going to drop him a message too. I don't agree, and that's because of the mediation process which I understand differently than you, I think. My understanding is that the moderator is there to enforce structure to the discussion, and intervene to prevent stray or personal attacks or disruptive things, and ultimately we'll develop consensus. You believe that the moderator is a judge and will rule on this for us. Is that the case? I might just bounce it off Hamtech. —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't view the mediator as a judge. It's not like he's there to award the ribbon to the best argument.  The decision the mediator makes will be based on his experience and his understanding of the arguments and Wikipedia policies.  Those are the only expectations I have.  Whether he decides that the term grassroots can be used, isn't what is important at this point.  What is important, and the reason I suggested the mediation cabal in the first place, was to end the disruption being caused.  At some point, the term will be added/deleted again and again by many other editors.  I have not seen Nillagoon's comments, but if two people are now telling you that your comments were not as effective as you'd hoped, then perhaps you should rethink them.  Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See this is what I mean and what I don't like about being unsure. You're understanding of the mediation is obviously different than mine which is why we're not seeing eye to eye. For the record Malke I'm of the belief that this is not an arbitration, and Ham is just along to keep things semi-formal. We're going to develop consensus on the topic and he's an impartial party that doesn't factor into it. When I get back to the office I'm going to ask Ham for clarity. And in the mean time, not to piss down your throat, but keep in mind wp:mediation so we're  on the same about where I'm getting my idea. --Digiphi 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, "piss down your throat." My, what a vivid image.  No, that's not how it works.  Ham is a mediator in a dispute.  He's not there to moderate the dispute.  He's going to tell us what he thinks should be done. When we sign on, we agree to respect the process, and accept the outcome.  Of course, on Wikipedia, the outcome will last about ten minutes.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll forgive the metaphor. It's just us boys at work, and I sometimes forgot when I'm addressing a lady. So a thousand apologies, Miss. As to the text, it is what I'm talking about. In our case Hamtech isn't acting as an arbitrator, right? We're participating in an informal mediation, I believe. I've asked Hamtech, at least for my benefit. —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 23:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC):
 * The outcome is not binding, nor can Hamtechperson issue sanctions against any editor who has been disrupting the consensus. Critically, the parties to a case should note that where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution. Hamtechperson, must also look at Wikipedia policy. Arbitration, however, would be binding, and the committee could sanction a disruptive editor by sending him to the gallows.  Malke 2010 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the project/talk page. You ONE. Me NONE. When you're right, you're right. —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 06:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Digiphi, you are the definition of a fine and collegial fellow. Very cool of you to go back and change things.  It's looking really good now. :)  Malke 2010 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 04:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I'll take a look when I get a chance. Can you help me out? Which article is it? —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ted Frank & Center for Class Action Fairness THF (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to Give Thanks
Thank you very much. That's very nice. I'm just giddy. -<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. My pleasure.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

mediation
Hi Digiphi, the mediator over on the mediation cabal does not seem to be active anymore, so I've posted Nillagoon's edit suggestion over on the Tea Party movement talk page. Might as well open it up to everybody. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads Up!
I just wanted to let you know that User:Ibn kathir reported you and I for edit warring against him here but lacked the grace to inform us. The result was "No Vio" for us, but I am on the verge of filing similarly against Ibn Kathr for his disruptive editing. Stay tuned for further developments, lol. Doc  Tropics  17:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Been away for Thanksgiving. Yeah, that guy is a little ridiculous. -<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 01:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

cabal thing
Hi Digiphi, Apparently, there is a referendum to decide if we should continue with the cabal mediation. . I've said close as I think we're coming to a wider consensus on the article talk page. We're going to have to do that anyway. Go over there and comment when you have time. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Message
I left a message for you on my talk page. (Please feel free to remove this notice once you've read it.) <font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Dylan <font size=3 color=#007f00 face="Script MT Bold, cursive">Flaherty  19:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin
You just added poorly-sourced material to the Brett Kimberlin article which accuses a living person of attempted murder. Your edit places the Wikimedia Foundation in danger of a libel lawsuit. I suggest that you comply with WP:BLP and undo your edit. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see it the way you do, but I'll review the policy page and think about it. Thanks for checking in. —<font face="Garamond">Digiphi (<font face="Cambria"> Talk  ) 18:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)