User talk:Piratejosh85

Welcome
Hello, Piratejosh85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

about rights
I didn’t have enough time to do it thoroughly, but it should be clear that the term, right always refer to something universal, as opposed to privilege.

It was meant to show others that the article needed a rearranging, and a proper distinction between right and privilege, not merely to be removed and ignored. rphb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rphb (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it..
Talk:Sheldon High School (Eugene, Oregon)

Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Burden of Proof
If you go to the reference (http://www.valpo.edu/mcs/pdf/ReasonableDoubtFinal.pdf), the document states it was published in 1971, not 1970. The authors were Simon and Mahan, not just Simon.

Here's the excerpt from the reference: "References [1] Rita James Simon and Linda Mahan. Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review., 5(3):319–330, 1971."

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I don't log in very often,

Bizzako (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lost.
Why not take to the talk page? It's a very large page, with a very dedicated following here. Consensus should be gained before making a change like that. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * prob. a good idea. will do.

Thanks for restoring my edit
Appreciate it. I'm thinking of either adding new stuff to the article on rights by researching it online, perhaps in the next week if I have time, but I'm keen on avoiding edit wars so I'll post prospective changes on a talk page and will be seeking your thoughts? Most likely it will be merely referencing what's there since it's fairly good right now. Wondering what you think about the article. But right now I'm working on a prospective article called Lies told by presidents of the United States. Hopefully I'll find enough to justify making it into an article!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. (templated message, figured it's be easier) tedder (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My condolences
Just read about the long history of vandalism on your user page by one single IP. Glad the guy was blocked. I'll do my best to keep an eye out to make sure he's blocked again if he starts up once it's lifted. Cheers! Elation Aviation  18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Conversation
Re the deletion of a game about conversation from the subject conversation. Is there a better place to add this on the page. It is relevant to the subject. I did not want to start a gaming subsection. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversation&action=history

Nickluft (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My problem was I didn't understand the relevance of the game. I understand that TAOC might help a person become better at conversation, but why is it relevant to understanding the subject of conversation?  All entries in the literature section gives information on conversation, or would be useful souces, sort a "further reading" section for people wanting to know more about conversation.  Maybe you could help me understand why TAOC is relevant to understanding of subject of conversation, not just being a game where players have conversations. Piratejosh85 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Fanny pack are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, and not for discussing the subject of the article. Clearly my comment was related to the quality of the article (nice picture), and not about fanny packs.  Piratejosh85 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That you feel the photo is "awesome" is clearly not "discussion related to improving the article". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that saying you think one of the photos is "awesome" is not related to improving the article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that's your opinion. I got that from your last post.  I still disagree.Piratejosh85 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you just don't understand. Gee, you like the photo. That's all kinds of special. Improving the article would involve changing it for the better. Your random chat has nothing whatsoever to do with changing the article to make it better. Please don't do it again. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why improving cannot include expressing approval of a depiction. Improvement is not be limited expressions of disapproval, demands for change, or malcontent, but can include missives of encouragement, approval or congratulations.  Please believe that I do understand your opinion, even since the first time you gave it. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. You improve something by making it better. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

conversation edit
thanks for editing the conversation conversation re banter. I am also a runner. I am not an ogre. I do have a sense of humour (note the proper English spelling). Could you, as requested, leave the non-encyclopedic edit in until 25 May? The comment is true but not published in a creditably sourced document. I will reverse the edit on 25 may. Oh and I have absolutely no idea how any of the esoteric edit features or the etiquette operate ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldiers5 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, will leave until then Piratejosh85 (talk) 06:27, 21 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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Condition subsequent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Condition subsequent, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Condition subsequent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)