User talk:Older and ... well older/Archive 3

In response to your comments on Kyle Sandilands
I have to say that I'm curious. What is it about Kyle Sandilands' comments that "India is a shithole" that isn't notable? In the context of the time, it was particularly unfortunate because Australia had a major diplomatic row with India over treatment of Indian students. So much so the Australian Prime Minister at the time took a special trip to India. The comments from Sandilands further inflamed the situation. Are you saying that this was not a notable event?

But hey, I'm not going to push it further. If the Wikipedia admins and editors want to deliberately exclude an important event, then I guess Wikipedia can't really be called a particularly good source of information. If editors want to sweep this under the carpet, with no consideration of the implications for not including the info, then there isn't much I can do about it. Good to see Wikipedia is as biased and ignorant as ever! - 58.163.175.192 (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Paterno edit request confusion
Hi there - I reactivated the edit request on the Paterno page that you discontinued. I had actually revised it per the previous editors suggestions, so it is not the same as the original request. Should I just resubmit the new version as a new edit request? Thanks. --AVR2012 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Super Bowl Vegas Favored line
Hello, I was just curious to get another opinion on this matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Bowl_XLVI#Favored_Line As the line is dropping from the opening vegas issue. Thanks for your time.

24.147.30.7 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)SirWence

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Deaths in 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Longest Day (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Its doesn't matter, it was just an honest mistake, really. I have a terrible computer! Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✍ Stalk me) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for that Lin edit. I've regained a tremendous sense that we can expect fairness in the wiki evaluating process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.63.176 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
Forgive me, about the rush about the second repeat, but thank you for the autoconfirmation.GoShow (...............) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SudoGhost 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Bryan White, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mixed ancestry?
I am curious as to your listing of being of 'mixed ancestry' on your user page. It seems completely meaningless. Everyone alive is of 'mixed' ancestry, as everyone currently alive shares several common ancestors, not too long ago. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is meaningless if you take it to that extreme. In the past few generations, I have representatives from a large number of ethnic groups in my family tree, so I have mixed ancestry as opposed to someone who might, for instance, be able to trace his German heritage back tens of generations. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Tweet
I had already corrected it when you declined; if my justification is unsound, feel free to revert me; if you do so, please revert or strike my talkpage comment as well. Dru of Id (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueware
I have some changes I need made for my company the company name is "Blueware" I have everything in the talk section. Is there any chance you could take care of that for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.34.242 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is going to be difficult; the content you are asking to have added reads like a company brochure. You should read the policy/advice about conflict of interest. The gist is that you can edit with a conflict of interest, but you need to be very careful about writing in a neutral manner and providing reliable sources for any facts you present. Are there specific errors on the current page which you want to correct immediately? If you provide an independent, reliable source, we can state what the source states. If we rely on company websites, we can only state that the company claims this. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

SWTOR consensus
I apologize if I failed to follow protocol when I made my edit request for the article Star Wars: The Old Republic. I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia and was not aware of the proper etiquette for the situation. I read the article you included in your message and created a new section heading for the topic (In search of consensus: fansite wiki project external links). Is this an appropriate start, and if I have failed to recognize a step in this process would you please share it with me? -- KingDMS (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do have a question; what recourse is there when the established users that respond to the recommendation refuse to even attempt to reach consensus? When they use personal attacks and attempt to identify conditions about myself that would invalidate the entire idea? I outlined my concerns and proposed a course of action, but instead of speaking on the merits of the ideas, or lack thereof, I'm being forced to defend myself on a professional and ethical basis. Even when they do cite a guideline or policy, they refuse to explain why it applies in one case and not the other. It seems like the established users in question are exercising bias, not necessarily against any content, but against me personally. -- KingDMS (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment Collective-Rights History pre-Heller
Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history. I'm not claiming you personally had any statement about this, but I wanted to post the identical thing on every editors' talk page so please do not take it personally. "You" refers to anyone who disputes the reliable sources I have posted below.

The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.


 * Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.”

...

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the Constitution". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 03:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm J8079s. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''Please do not blog or conter blog. Use the proper format. Direct personal comments to the talk page of the user. No personal attacks. This note is about behavior not content '' J8079s (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Gates
i saw you make my edit request and bill gates is just a chairman per http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/billg/ but is he a executive chairman? am confused 83.185.188.96 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You might have more luck resolving your confusion by talking to the editors at Talk:Bill Gates. I removed the term "non-executive" since it was requested and the term did not appear to be supported by any source. Seeya, Celestra (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates
If you think it's better to say Liu Xiaobo is imprisoned by the so-called "Government of the People's Republic of China" (the regime the Communist Party founded), I have no objection. --Jabo-er (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
I thought the user is anonymously editing others edits here. Thank you so much for letting me know the fact! --     L o g     X    13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Loewy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

technology have come a long way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rguyah2 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

refactoring your messages
FWIW, I'm very  proud of my  record of civility, it  goes with  the job  I  do  here. But sometimes people who lash out  are going  to  get my  blunt  end in  return. I'm thick  skinned - it  also  goes with  the job, but I'm  just  more concerned that  you  are hopefully more friendly to newbies and younger users. Maybe there's also a cultural  dichotomy, but  I've been on  both  sides of the pond and around most  of the rest of the English  speaking  world. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that I "lashed out", but in the spirit of accepting criticism gracefully, thanks for pointing out how it seemed to you. I _was_ offended by your reformatting, which is why WP:TPOC advises against it, and I was disappointed by your concept of "help" for the new editor, so I made an extra effort to be polite in my comments. I have read them dozens of times since your initial reply and I still don't see how they might appear "caustic", but I accept that they seemed that way to you. I will also accept what you say about your civility and thick skin, and I will simply assume I caught you on a bad day. Regards, Celestra (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Depends on who  exactly  had a bad day. FWIW, when I  see such obvious, unintentional, innocuous minor editing  errors on  non-article pages, I  just  tacitly  make the correction  and get  on  with  my  work. Generally, commenting  on  them - especially  to  editors whom  you  are well  aware are reasonably  conscientious about  their work -  generates more heat  than light as you  have seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess that depends on the editor. I accept that you simply made a mistake and did not intend to violate TPOC or cause offense. Since you did not intend to do that and are conscientious, it is unlikely you will do that in the future, so the original purpose of the thread is fulfilled. The rest _is_ generating more heat than light and we should agree to drop it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * With the huge number of edits I  make, rare, minor errors are always possible - even with  my  admin  tools. But  the error rate is  extremely  low for 7 years and 60,000+ edits. WP:DTR provides a useful  insight  and can also  apply  to  custom  messages.   As the majority  of your edits appears to  come from patrolling  Recent  Changes and/or edit requests, and as you  appear to  be   well  informed over our policies and guidelines,   may  I  suggest  you try  your hand at  something  more challenging  and consider lending  a hand at  WP:AfC and WP:NPP  where we have some serious backlogs to  contend with? Thank  you  and have a nice day. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * “Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.” (Rita Mae Brown)
 * “We do not learn from experience...we learn from reflecting on experience.” (John Dewey)
 * Thanks for the suggestions - I might try those if I have some free time. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia naming article proposal / sub chapter on juridical aspects of naming Macedonia in the UN
For Macedonia naming article, the best way is to add a new section there relating to legal aspects of naming Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.55.176 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia naming article proposal / sub chapter on juridical aspects of naming Macedonia in the UN
For Macedonia naming article, the best way is to add a new section there relating to legal aspects of naming Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.55.176 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ehipassiko comment
Hey there, I wanted to let you know that I submitted the edit you requested for the origin of transgender. Thank you for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehipassiko (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Impey Barbicane comment
Economics and politics are directly related. I posted a well referenced section on economics in Gun Politics and you, dliigencedude and Grahamboat decided that you didn't like the sources, like the UN treaty on the black market manufacturing and sales of firearms (which addresses political firearm issues in the States), and deleted the section. Why would I have anything to do with a group of people who censor the reality of the relationship between economics and politics because of their own ideology? Wikipedia has a crap reputation for accuracy because of ideological censorship and the deliberate insertion of false material based on ideology. Go ahead, censor all you want. Eliminate anyone whose material invades your little fantasy ideology. Why would I ever even bother to contribute again? Censor me, I would rather be censored than live in a fantasy. Impey Barbicane ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

GreekParadise comment
Please review my proposals for revisions to the lede (lead?) for the Second Amendment article and comment on them on the talk page. Or, if you prefer, respond to me on my talk page if you think we should discuss it further prior to your comment. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please help with the Second Amendment. We are at an impasse. Grahamboat and North8000 seem to reject the NYT, the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service as reliable sources for the proposition that I've never seen contradicted -- that from 1942-2000, the federal judiciary took the "collective view," rather than the individual view. I know you respect the reliability of these sources. Before we seek mediation, I'm hoping you can lend some common sense here.GreekParadise (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Drsoumyadeep comment
Hi Celestra

This is about the Inclusion of evidence about Corticosteroids for treating dengue shock syndrome which I have requested and you queried about where in the article it should be placed. It should be placed in the section marked Management in the Dengue page. The Best would be after the second paragraph.

Best Soumyadeep  (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice
A discussion you recently participated in has resumed here:


 * Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States

Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Lightbreather (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * It's not a problem, but thanks for the note. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

List of most viewed YouTube videos
A reply was posted on the talk page of the subject (here) -- you had responded on two edit requests and had made an edit on the article for one of those which was appreciated - thanks! And, if interested, there is additional discussion, commentary, etc. (here and here). 98.70.74.244 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Older. Really?
Saw your post today at V talk and took use of your username and then your user page infobox. I'll see that Eisenhower infobox and raise you a Truman (see my user page). Older, indeed. You're just a youngster. (Of course we're both ancient by the standard of most Wikipedians...) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you could read it that way, my respected sextigenarian colleague, but of course I meant it in the "I used to be young and stupid, but I'm not as young any more" sense. :) Thanks for the friendly note. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Durrani
Many information about him is wrong he was a king by his anscenter and he was with alliance with Nadir shah he was on Islamic way he was a ethnic Pukhtoon many people get jealous of his Him and his tribe so edit and give true information to users Durrani khurasan (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. I've also made sure all sections have headers and dates.--rchard2scout (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)