User talk:ResultingConstant/Archive 1

September 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 2602:306:378E:1930:E92F:4617:5507:3E21 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hello anon IP. 1) The article does not say what you say it says. in fact it says Christian militias during the Lebanese Civil War were decidedly far-right, and they became notorious for a number of heinous war crimes. (There is no indication that Daou personally took part in these.) 2) Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE information which has been removed from a BLP on good faith may not be restored until there is consensus for conclusion. There is no such consensus, therefore you are the one engaging in policy violations. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
With all due respect I don't think this edit is credible:. I'm literally just trying summarise the legal position, but I don't think you are; your edits appear motivated.GliderMaven (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See article talk. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yo.
You reviewed Bloodpop. What is the protocol?Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Protocol for what? ResultingConstant (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the page passed review ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * New page patrol is a pretty minimal criteria. Its basically just "not obviously bad". That doesn't mean it will survive long term. There are some good sources for this guy, but on the other hand a lot of the sources suck too. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy
Delete the content but mind the references. Unintended consequence, I'm sure. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Freddie Gray Knife.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Freddie Gray Knife.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Manu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Manu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eric Manu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Emmet Till
So, pray tell, what did "Bobo" mean for a black kid in the 1940's?John Paul Parks (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No clue. But Urbandictionary doesn't tell us anything about it. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

response
Since you asked, and I'd rather not post on the page you asked, I thought I'd answer here. If people want to revert me simply on the principle of topic ban, I suppose they can. If they think the edit I made is a constructive, uncontroversial improvement to the encyclopedia, then I hope they won't. -- Netoholic @ 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in general, they will. And commenting on the talk page is just asking for trouble. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hopefully someone reading the talk page will vet my edit and implement it. Improving wikipedia is the point. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, I'm ThePlatypusofDoom. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Milo Yiannopoulos— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a giant section on this already Milo_Yiannopoulos that has the exact same information, literally the previous lines of the article. Why?

Media outlets reported on February 20 that Breitbart is considering terminating Yiannopoulos, also because of the views he expressed on sex with minors.[93][94][95] As a result of this incident, Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart on February 21 after half a dozen employees threatened to leave.[96][97]

Is the same as

Following reports that Breitbart was considering dismissing Yiannopoulos and that colleagues at the news network threatened to walk out if he was not fired,[98] Yiannopoulos tendered his resignation.[99] ResultingConstant (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that, as I was using Huggle, I apologize. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till lead sentence RFC
I posted a new section on the Talk:Emmett Till page. Once posted I noticed my new section enclosed within a closed discussion blue box. I think it may be connected to the "Emmett Till lead sentence RFC" discussion you closed on 15:19, 31 March 2017. There are five other new sections also affected by this issue. Is it possible you can fix this? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Billy Liakopoulos
Hi there, re: this, I believe you notified the wrong user about the English issues at Attica TV. Should've been. Although it might be a moot point, as the user made the erroneous edits eight months ago. Your call though. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

ARCA archived
Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  18:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump and truth
I'm requesting that you restore this content. There are many types of untrue statements he utters, and including criticism of Obama and Hillary while doing so is one of them. This is a good example that should be kept. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

About that closer
Re this, an uninvolved party would be preferable. Rivertorch FIREWATER  18:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * doh! you are quite right, and I have updated the note:) ResultingConstant (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bill of Rights did not provide protection to people. Only Free People.
Later the supreme court forced the inclusion of all people but this was not the case when passed and ratified. The bill of rights never applied base on citizenship just person-hood ie people and for many years, free people only. We must start to impose accuracy on Wikipedia and bring it into compliance with federal civil rights law. Thank you for your help in this matter. Scottprovost (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a reasonable philosophical argument, but that argument is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Find a WP:RELIABLESOURCE which makes this argument, and that argument can be represented in the article per WP:NPOV in proportion to the predominance of this pov relative to other povs. But rewriting the article to conform with WP:The Truth will not fly. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Unlike you, I referenced published documentsScottprovost (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommended change to Teixeira v. County of Almameda
The current entry on Teixeira v. County of Almameda cites a 3-panel ruling of the 9th circuit in 2015, but fails to mention that the ruling was overruled in 2017 by the same court sitting “en banc”. Recommendation:

Teixeira v. County of Almameda No. 13-17132 (en banc, October 10, 2017), reviewied a county ordinance that prohibited firearm sales near residentially zoned districts, schools, day-care centers, other firearm retailers and liquor stores. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled a three judge panel (which had ruled that the Second Amendment independently protects the sale of firearms), and ruled that "the Second Amendment does not confer a freestanding right to sell firearms". See opinion pp 34-41. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf Lexjuris (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers
Hello. There are references for this info. Please do not undo revision. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPLEAD
Please have a look at WP:BLPLEAD, specifically the section WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. If you still feel that Oldman should be called a filmmaker, please find reliable sources, and we can then have a discussion. Thanks, LK (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just face-saving silliness. Oldman has numerous credits and awards as a director/producer. 82.132.232.109 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy. It says: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources". It's not enough that a person has done something. We describe a person following how RS regularly refer to the person. LK (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your talk page suggestion
Mentioned your idea at the edit warring case. Per WP:UNDUE some better wording about the Waltham arrest might be found. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback re:political donations
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my inquiry at WP:Biography. Would you be willing to collaborate with me on resolving this content issue? If not, perhaps you could recommend another member of WP:Biography who is?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing Talk at Kavanaugh
I saw a partial delete at Talk: Brett Kavanaugh had left behind a section and a signature, so I've removed the stray text.

I suggest it is better to collapse the offending section, and possibly to alter the title of the section. Alternatively, one can ping the editor inovolved and ask them to remove the offending material. The general rule of WP:TALKO is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

PROD Deaf Side Story
I noticed you have done some work on Deaf Side Story. Just to let you know, I have proposed it for deletion.CircleGirl (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

File:AmericanGothicModels.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC Request
Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)