User talk:SaltyBoatr/Archive 1

Patience
I commend you on your patience in dealing with contentious issues and editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

2A intro
As I mentioned, I have a friend who is a writer assisting in a proposed draft of a 2A intro. They have no interest at all in the 2A as far as I can tell, so should be in theory unbiased. We're drafting via IM at the moment. Care to participate somehow? Not sure what methodology we could use, but I'm sure we could find something. Arthur 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how this discussion works, so bear with me. I wrote a passage back in November which has been up for a few months. I peeked today and someone had ripped it down. So I re-posted it. And it was ripped down again. How can I find out what the objection is, and why is the onus on me when this appeared to be accepted months ago? -Confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

James Fontaine
Well done, I commend you for having your references ready so quickly. I would make a sugestion to you though: try to add a few inline citations to the article to firm up the information, it will help with the referencing situation. If you haven't done so already I suggest dropping a message on the talk page for the biography wikiproject and ask them to evalute the article; since it is within their scope as well they can help with formatting issues and other related matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry bout that:bob13377
sorry about that one edit... wont happen again... promise, k? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob13377 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth...
... did you fix that so fast? Is this something you get paid to do? I would hope so. Otherwise, I can only picture you as an obsessed Pohlad-apologist who constantly monitors his page, and that just creeps me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.148.2 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
You were already approved for VandalProof. βcommand 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow vandalism
Hi. With respect to your note at WP:AIV, long-term slow vandalism can be treated by the use of the template uw-longterm. After that, as long as the action is within a reasonable time and particularly if it demonstrates a pattern, you should be able to report the problem to AIV or WP:ANI. I hope that this helps. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Please don't report vandalism that is stale to WP:AIV, as you did here. AIV is for urgent, current vandalism. Please only report a vandal who is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning. Do not use automated editing tools to make incorrect reports, as such tools can be taken away if persistently misused. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the coaching. I don't know where would be the proper place to report a user account used entirely for vandalism, but which is not presently active.  If not WP:AIV, is there some where else?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need to report them at all. If they're not editing, they're not vandalising. And if they're not vandalising, there's nothing to report.


 * If they reappear (and have a username; different advice applies to IP addresses) then they can be reported based on them having had the full set of warnings last time and another upon reappearance.


 * If they don't reappear, ignoring them saves administrator and vandalfighter time for use against active vandals.


 * If they are vandalising but it is not clear; is complex; is intermittent; or it cannot be summed up in a single sentence; then WP:ANI is your friend.


 * Don't let the severely and fatally mis-named tick boxes in Twinkle let you think "if I tick this, it makes it true". It doesn't. Happy editing! ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you forget that I did not dumbly rely on the Twinkle 'tick boxes', using words I carefully commented the nuance of this vandal when I reported it to WP:AIV.


 * What confuses me in this instance is that being a lapsed vandal appears to be OK in the eyes of AIV admins. I find this bewildering, as I don't see how timing matters.  A vandal is a vandal.  I must conclude that vandals are acceptable if they evade quick detection. Rather what matters is the immediate act of vandalizing.  This concept confuses me, but I guess I can learn to deal with it.   This user which I reported would have been banned indefinitely had he/she been caught four weeks ago.  But when reported today, he/she has successfully gotten away with the 'crime'.   I don't get the logic in that.  I am only trying to understand what is the consensus, (or if there is a consensus) on how to deal with vandals.  I am learning, it is not the vandals that are the problem, but rather the vandalism. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gropegate
An article that you have been involved in editing, Gropegate, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Dloh cierekim  00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Antisexualism
I did not "vandalize" this page. I added information to it.--71.203.147.175 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer
This is a copy of my answer to your comment in the alzheimer talk page. Best regards:

News are not a reliable sourcing but can give you clues on the reliable source that lies behind (in this case a published scientific article: see ). The article seems quite promising and in the future these kind of treatments may be useful for the people with the disease. However its only a unique case (only one patient) and therefore we can not be sure that that the effect is related to the treatment. Due to the thousands of studies going on looking for treatments for the disease there is an agreement only to include in the Wikipedia article only those studies that are alredy in phase III of the clinical trials (the last phase before being used widely). Thanks anyway for providing such an interesting article. --Garrondo (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also had a response to you on the alzheimer talk page. It would be fantastic if everything we see mentioned in the news shows effect to change the disease course, but of the 60 drugs here  only 5 are on the market with an indication for Alzheimer's.  Even the phase 3 compounds have a higher likelihood of being discontinued versus approved (using historical norms for the category).  The cynics might want to call it "potential treatments that are unlikely to make it to market," but with enough attempts, some of these may be approved.  --Chrispounds (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

please keep discussion about articles on their respective pages
frankly, i don't know what your latest comments are about. i have never edited the 2nd amend article - or at least, it's been a year or more if i did. again, please discuss articles on their respective pages. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I answered here. And, at times user talk pages are necessary.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

please stop the harrassment
i reverted your edit this morning. once. 'warning' me about 3RR is nothing but harrassment. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to collaborate with you, not harass you, but your response has been to evade and engage in edit war. More here.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * warning an editor about 3RR after a single revert is harrassment, not collaboration.Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:3RR. The issue is to avoid edit warring.  Your behavior in the last week+ has been a clear edit war.  Instead, let us work this out collaboratively.  Your quick 'single revert' this morning was part of the edit war you have mounted, spanning several days, plainly violated the spirit at the heart of WP:3RR, and deserved a warning.  See also WP:EW, which describe it better.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i disagree. i see this as being much closer to bold, revert, discuss. these are exceptionally contentious issues, and even though discussion has been heated, for the most part it has been civil, and productive. i'm sorry you disagree. Anastrophe (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy to do dispute resolution over this with you, but sorry, when you do reverts like you did just this morning claiming a book is not a reliable source, and then admit to not having even read the book. Well, that is much more like edit warring.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology for Gun Politics
I apologize for making a mistake when making an edit summary for Gun Politics. Unfortunately, I have said it was citation #89, however it was citation #88.

Please be sure to remove those fact tags because I will not have the time to check. Mapletip (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, jumped the gun.
Sorry, I have a tendency to accidentally flip out sometimes after misreading a diff, lol.

In case you see this, SORRY. God, I'm an idiot, man.

Maybe it's just lack of reading comprehension or I try to read things too quickly? I was almost about to post a report on you on WP:ANI before I realized I had misread what you posted. Yes, your source is reliable and the article is currently crap. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment Intro
I'm not the only person to have made edits post-consensus. If you don't want edits to be made, then full protection should be placed on the Introduction to that article. Otherwise, edits should be allowed as with any other part of that article, or with any article that's without full protection. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Stop taking this dispute personally. I'm not attacking you. There are people who agree with your version of the Introduction, and those that agree with mine. I'm not attacking you, and I don't feel that you are attacking me. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See here, you characterized my good faith, sourced edits as 'arrogant'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment
United States v. Emerson states that Emerson cited state Supreme Court decisions construing the Second Amendment. (The current language is "The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including many state supreme court decisions)") If you believe this is incorrect, you might want to look at that article. --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

talk page
Q:

A: please respect the notice at the top of my talk page, and engage in discussion of articles on their respective article talk pages, not on my user talk page. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Q:

A: discuss article changes on the article talk page. how much clearer can it be? your question pertained to the article. we're all editors here, challenging every editor's edits on user talk pages is quintessentially counter productive - for reference, exactly what is taking place in this exchange, which is an utter and complete waste of time. please discuss article changes, edits, improvements, errors, whatever, on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Q:

A:please stop harassing me. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV
I've removed 65.111.197.194 (twice now) - my edit summary here explains my rationale. Any problems, give me a shout - if they vandalise from now on, feel free to re-list. Thanks. GBT/C 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify, Dave removed it the second time. Thanks! GBT/C 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of removing material, add material that balances out the other material. Continuing to remove material you dislike, regardless of your motivation, will likely get you blocked (see above post). I'm not threatening you, and I wouldn't be the one to block you, but you are annoying many editors (see 2A talk page). It would be better to get your point across in another way. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand and have things backwards. I am challenging the addition of material which violated WP:NPOV policy. The burden of proof is on the other editor seeking to add the material.  See also my explanations on the article talk page.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on Second ammendment
If the article was unprotected, I would have a POV tag on it straight away, and as an editor I can see areas of the article where it would be appropriate. However, as an administrator I am required to edit protected pages only to reflect consensus, and it is equally clear that the consensus on this issue is far from clear - indeed the page appears to have been protected because of a war over the POV tag. With regards my edit summary of "per previous rationale", I noticed after declining the editprotected tag that there was another tag higher up the page, asking for essentially the same edit. My two edits dealt with two separate tags, with the second edit referring to the rationale expressed in the first. I hope that clears this up. Happy‑melon 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Pacifica, California
How spitcast.com and bayareavr.net spam?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I agree with you.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at the RS noticeboard
Hi there, I've responded to your comment here. Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the lead of the orthomolecular medicine article to reflect your comments. Thanks very much for your input. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please avoid edit warring. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record: You are referring to my edit where I was trying to fix a grammar error, which you then objected to. I tried to address your concerns by providing a citation here.  After these two edits, you reverted again and gave me this 3RR warning.  In any case, I have tried to keep your preferred wording "had" while including the fact that the condition continues to the present, with this edit.  Hopefully this end here, avoiding an edit war.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

we may disagree about everything else...
but vandalism is one place i'm sure we hold common ground. Anastrophe (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OEDcondemnDef.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:OEDcondemnDef.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the copyright status declaration, and I have explained my fair use rational. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

I made a mistake, which I regret. I apologize. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:OEDcondemnDef.gif
An image that you uploaded, Image:OEDcondemnDef.gif, has been listed at  because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See the fair use non-free use rational given on that image page.  SaltyBoatr (talk)

Suggested replacement for Gun Politics article
“If you think the Democrats are going to take away your Bible, you’re an idiot. If you think they’re going to take away your gun, you’re an armed idiot. And if you think they’re going to take away your gun and give it to a Mexican to kill your god, you’re Bill O’Reilly.” - Bill Maher --Cubic Hour (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
Your participation in Arbcom is requested here. Thank you. 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will participate. Hang on, I am working on preparing a statement.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick question about hunting weapon
One very quick question: in the arbcom case, you mentioned that scot was finally able to convince you of his position that "hunting weapon" is standard English. If this is so, why did you not simply acknowledge this when he convinced you, at which point the mediation could have been closed, with all parties agreeing that hunting weapon was acceptable? I'm just a little curious about that.--LWF (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Blocked for 96 hours. Third successive 3RR violation on Right to bear arms. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jayron32. Except that your advice is hollow, considering I have been working very hard at this already to "take up any problems on the article talk page, or seek dispute resolution in order to bring in uninvolved editors to comment on the situation.", and the editor making the false 3RR accusation does not reciprocate on the talk page and does not get blocked.  After the block expires, are you willing to help in the WP:DR?  My last attempt at WP:DR with Yaf failed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe, lurking and following this saga, that you were blocked for edit warring. Though you may or may not have TECHNICALLY violated the 3RR, if you read the project page for the 3RR you see that you're trying to game the system by avoiding the 3RR as a rule, but still violating the spirit. You seem to be the only one on whatever side it is you take.  Perhaps you need to consider if your edits are truly in the best interest of the articles you're editing.  If they were, I'd assume there would be droves of editors coming to your defense. Just a thought. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your paying attention to this saga. I have considered your suggestion, even before you made it.  Another possibility here is that of systemic bias.  I believe that a careful analysis of the editor dynamics at the Right to bear arms article finds that editors that pay attention to that article tend to be skewed towards those who seek to "defend" the "right to bear arms" ideology.  This leads to a situation, (like just occurred) where two 'pro-gun' ideologues pair of against one NPOV ideologue, in an edit war.  Constructive discussion on the talk page was attempted and failed, as 'pro gun' idealism does not mix with WP:NPOV policy.   A two to one edit war occurred.  My options?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a circuitous argument. If you are in the minority, then the sample must be tainted.  Your reasoning is flawed.  While it's true that if you surveyed 1,000 people and the majority said that the world is flat, that does not make the world flat.  This is your argument in this case.  The problem is, this is not a reality based web site.  It is based on concensus.  Concensus is the prevailing view, not necessarily the right one.  You seem to be focusing on convincing everyone you are right rather than building a concensus.  If you take your tactics to the extreme, you are acutally justifying YAF's actions more than your own.  True, you are both edit warring to some degree, however he is doing so from a position of power.  You're sniping away at each other, but that is hurting your credibility much more than it is helping your arguments.  Again, just a thought.  In the end, you can question the methodology till you are blue in the face, but once you've exhausted your arbitration rights, you will end up losing the concensus because the prevailing view will still be opposed to your own.  Your options?  While I disagree with your edits, your opinions (when supported properly) can exist alongside those of those you disagree with. You just will need to find another angle. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your advice sounds good except, when I checked, it appears inconsistent. Considering that you give my partner Yaf just the opposite advice.  Then I checked your contribution history and see a strong pro-firearms point of view.  This raises questions in my mind about your true intent, though I am trying to WP:AGF, it is difficult here.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I am template linking your request for the moment. First, I want to make very clear that the three revert rule is not an entitlement to any number of reverts. The rule itself states: "...the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period..."

Second, I have a bit of unsolicited advice. The tag seems to be standing and I would encourage you not to take any future bait to edit war. It's really silly to war over an article tag, generally speaking. Rather than invest so much energy into tagging the article, put it into finding good sources and fixing the issues. If you run into disagreements you cannot resolve, there are plenty of people waiting to help.

That all said, if I were to unblock you would you agree to avoid multiple reverts and edit warring, with the understanding that further incidents of edit-warring will be looked upon in a very poor light? Vassyana (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, as much as humanly possible, to avoid my role in the edit warring. Candidly, your answer to my question was a bit fuzzy, but I get your point that what qualifies as a 'revert' (any number) or as edit warring is in the judgment of the beholder.  So yes, I agree to be extremely cautious about the gray line between good faith editing and reverts/edit warring.   Unfortunately with articles that involve a high degree of emotions, like those associated with gun politics, tempers rise, and Yaf in the past has called my good faith edits to be reverts, and when I try to take it to the talk page, then stonewalling the talk page.   I have tried WP:DR in the past with Yaf, and it failed.    Check my edit history, I believe you would agree that I have in the past and will continue in the future to exceedingly patient and   remained civil in difficult editing environments.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and as further demonstration of my good faith, I am going to avoid editing on gun related articles until after Yaf is released from this 100 hour block. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sitck to the sources
Edits like this which are not only controversial, but also provide commentary beyond the sources, are not acceptable. Pushing controversial edits on a disputed article with a history of edit warring, particularly when you've been blocked and warned about edit warring, is quite simply disruptive and non-productive. It is beyond the pale when the edit violates basic content principles, such as sticking to the sources. You've been around for over a year and been blocked/warned repeatedly. You know the content rules by now. You know the behavior expected of you by now. Further edits of this sort will result in a block and topic ban discussion. Vassyana (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the Cramer and Olson source? I did, and they state (pg 2): "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts."  That being the case, my edit, does not provide commentary beyond the source at all.  Please explain.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That snippet is in fact part of the source's criticism contradicting previous scholarly research. You'll note the very next sentence: "But this is perhaps reflective of a selection bias problem." Nowhere do Cramer and Olson "confirm," as you claim, "that the term 'bear arms' in government documents overwhelmingly involved usages related to military service." You further claim that "the study was expanded to non-governmental documents." This is a blatant misrepresentation of their research in which they expand the corpus of English language documents to both non-governmental and additional governmental documents. Your claim that Cramer and Olson only expand "to non-governmental documents" is patently false, misleading, and does not "reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)." --tc2011 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down please. Cramer and Olson do indeed confirm that "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts."  What they also do, is to expand the study to non-governmental documents.  It is worth noting that Cramer and Olson, don't quantify their finding, but instead anecdotally mention a very few exceptions to the predominate 'military use' of the term, these exceptions they then describe simply as "a number" and do nothing to quantify the frequency.  By my estimate, based on reading the research, is that there have been many hundreds of uses identified in the 'military sense', and a small handful in the 'personal sense'.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SealOfPacifica.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:SealOfPacifica.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Second Amendment
Well, the "dispute" took place in June, I reviewed the article in October. If this dispute was still taking place, someone or yourself could have stated that the Good article nomination be withdrawn, but no such thing occurred. If you waited this long to tell me about the dispute, then something was really wrong here. If you want the delisting to happen, follow the respective procedures in doing so. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You have recently reverted 8 edits by 4 different editors in a controversial article. You may be in violation of WP:3RR. --tc2011 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette 20090215
This message is to inform you that a Wikiquette Alert has been initiated, naming you as an involved party. Please see the discussion at WP:WQA for details, and to add your comments if desired. NOTE: You are not bound or required to participate in this discussion, however your input would be helpful to resolve any dispute that may have contributed to this alert being posted.

Some important things to remember during a Wikiquette discussion; Edit Centric (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikiquette discussion is not an indictment, an insult, or a slight. Wikiquette discussions are an early step in dispute resolution, and involved users should bear that in mind during participation, so…
 * Please remain civil. If you have a dissenting view, please present it calmly, and cite any references to talk page or article content with the applicable diffs.
 * It is perfectly acceptable to disagree, as long as it is done agreeably.
 * Please read the introduction at the top of the WQA page for additional information.

Civil rights
The clue that the New York Times gave on Wednesday's paper for 25 across (three letters) was "Oldest U.S. civil liberties org." I'm sure the answer is NRA. People have made a distinction between civil rights and civil liberties, but it's definitely the word civil.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

fyi, sockpuppet investigation
please note that anon ip editor 141.154.15.141 has filed a sockpuppet claim re conlawgeek, philo-centinel and yourself. [] i don't believe the claim has any merit, but you may defend yourself there. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

spare me the canned warning
almost everything i wrote to this editor was politely stated, while being harangued in return. you're obviously very partial to this new user, to the point that you seem not to have actually read what i wrote. instead of warning this new user for his multiple violations of policy, you apologize to him on behalf of wikipedia?? amazing. now, please return to the article talk pages in question. i have no interest in a dialogue on user talk pages. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

please review WP:NPA
your recent edit to my talk page has the appearance of a personal attack, and the appearance of an attempt to intimidate another editor by making public accusations that the editor has a particular POV they are pushing into article space; this is in contravention of assuming good faith. that may not be the case, but the similarity to recent addition of same intimidating text to your fellow editor Yaf's talk page suggests a pattern of attempted intimidation. please refrain from making personal attacks, or attempting to intimidate your fellow editors, if in fact this was the intent. i'm prepared to move forward with sanctions if this pattern of abuse of policy continues. thank you.Anastrophe (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF in a nutshell means "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." In this instance there is strong evidence to the contrary.  It is very noticeable that I invited you to dispel the appearance of your misconduct and you did not attempt to explain the appearance of your misconduct.  Instead you threaten me with sanctions.  The appearance of your misconduct remains.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * strong evidence that i'm trying to hurt the project? nonsense - what is evident is merely your parti pris. I can't help you with that. i can, and do, help the project at every turn. i'm sorry we don't get along, but WP is not a social network. i work hard to improve articles, as do you. your perception of my bias is equaled by my perception of yours. unlike you however, i don't go around publicly labeling you or other editors and their edits using POV-implying language, and baldly and publicly accusing editors of bias. doing so is uncivil, and you've been warned about it countless times, but appear to be recalcitrant. you are testing the limits of my patience, beyond which i will be forced to seek sanctions. it's as simple as that. continue labeling other editors and their edits as "pro-gun advocacy" and the responsibility for your block or ban will be yours alone. Anastrophe (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you a simple question, which was not very offensive, yet you took deep offense. I asked you about this edit you made which was unsourced and appeared POV biased.  Twice now you neglected to speak to this appearance of your WP:NOR and WP:NPOV violations.  Instead, you hurl more direct personal threats aimed at me.  What is particularly interesting is that earlier you bluntly and baselessly accused me of bad faith you wrote: "being patently devoid of good faith".   When I asked you to retract your false and blunt accusation you said "please cite the wikipedia policy that requires me tender an apology. thanks".  Very odd, while you have a thin skin to simple questions you threaten sanctions and banning, yet when the shoe is on the other foot, you see no policy affecting you.  Wow.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See as usual WP:SOUP. frankly, i can't find any logical pathway through the above rant. it jumps from non-sequitur to non-sequitur, i'm sorry, i'm just not smart enough to parse it. the 2nd amendment is not incorporated. do you dispute that? if so, why? if not, then what possible original research or violation of neutral point of view is there in stating that which is defined by the fact that the 2nd is not incorporated? what sourcing is required when it follows, directly and logically, from that fact? states may choose to regulate concealed carry. likewise, states may choose to not regulate concealed carry. this is a patent fact, utterly obvious by the existence of states that regulate concealed carry and states that do not regulate concealed carry. sourcing is generally not required for unremarkable facts such as that.
 * as for my statement god knows how long ago that you were being patently devoid of good faith (and i can't even remember the circumstances at this point), apparently the sting of that still lingers. that, frankly, is bothersome to me. so, i apologize for saying that. no, no wikilawyering or gamesmanship here, if i injured you that genuinely then i sincerely apologize. we do a hell of a lot of back and forth bickering, and within that constant stream i stepped over the line at the human-to-human level. i don't intentionally try to hurt people's feelings, my verbal barbs can sometimes be more stinging than i intend.
 * i only ask that you cease with the constant labeling of other editors/edits as being "pro-gun advocacy". i have never read a comment by you in these past few years where you accused another editor of "pro-gun control advocacy" or "anti gun advocacy". that's why your bias shows. i on the other hand have challenged editors of both stripes, which is not to say that my bias isn't apparent too. but you constantly present yourself as the epitome of neutrality, and that is far from the case. you are as flawed as the rest of us, whether you care to admit it or not.
 * in another world we could probably be fast friends. i enjoy arguing with intelligent people. pity there's not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.Anastrophe (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for apology in the first part of your essay, sort of. It is hard to read it between all the interspersed character smears aimed at me.  Snowball's chance in hell.  Really?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * okay, probably not a snowball's chance. Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * just trying to be realistic....Anastrophe (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

restoring two important passages? [District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]
What is important about those passages that is not covered elsewhere in the article?

However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Why is this needed when just a couple of paragraphs down there is the fallowing paragraph in a more logical place in the article?

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in a non-binding section of the opinion, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[33] This type of commentary, known as dicta, is not binding on other courts because it is not necessary for the holding of the case, since none of those issues were before the Court in this case.

Why should the other paragraph be in a section about the impact on federal, state and local jurisdictions? The article is getting very long and is in need of trimming.

And what is “misleading” about my edit summaries? I find this insulting. 130.20.229.174 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See answer on other talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

your recent attack on me has been reported
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive62#an_untenable_personal_attack

thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Me asking you to be civil is an "attack"? Sorry.  See my response on that alert page.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

please avoid misrepresentations
truwik is not a "new user" (is there a formal policy definition for this term somewhere), and there was no sarcasm in my comments, they were quite serious. please avoid misrepresenting my commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i get the feeling that these recent posts to my talk page are the beginning of a campaign to 'document'  my alleged bad behavior, for later use against me. i was extremely skeptical of your offer to try to get along, and seemingly i was right to be skeptical. if you feel i'm violating policy,  as  i said before, file  your grievance.i reject having you policing my comments and attempting to control my behavior. that is not your bailiwick or purview, it is for wikipedia administration. tend  to your own behavior, or in the wise proverb - physician, heal thyself.  Anastrophe (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Please stop edit-warring at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution‎. The consensus at the talk page is that a tag is not appropriate because the article is sufficiently NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This so-called 'edit warring' is over whether or not we should include the alert to readers of the article


 * 1) "The neutrality of this article is disputed",
 * 2) "Please see the discussion on the talk page."
 * 3) "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."


 * Please explain which of these three conditions is false.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

fix please
please attend to the issue i identified in this edit, or i'll be forced to fix it myself. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

cease harrassment
you are the one reverting, and you are not using the talk page to discuss it. i've posted there, you've been silent. your warning on my talk page constitutes harrassment, since you're the one reverting without discussion. one more revert and i'll be reporting you. as you well know, you don't have to actually exceed three reverts to be sanctioned. and since you've been blocked multiple times for edit warring, whilst i've not, i think it's clear who is likely to be sanctioned. Anastrophe (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''per 3rr, even a single revert may constitute edit warring. in this instance, you warned me, advising me to discuss on talk page first. yet i've been discussing this on the talk page, you haven't contributed at all - merely choosing to revert me and issue a spurious warning. your edit warring is no longer tolerable.'' Anastrophe (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * too little, too late. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=295090922 Anastrophe (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Help Please
Salty, sorry I wasn't around for that issue earlier this month, there's been a LOT of stuff happening IRL on this end. I hardly get a chance to do any real mediation like I used to, and my article contribs as of late have been almost non-existant. Again, I apologise for missing that...

Edit Centric (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.


 * 72h. You appear to have forgotten the promise leading to your last unblock to avoid edit warring. Oh, and your failure to mark *any* of your reverts as such is irritating William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, my pleading on the talk page to follow dispute resolution procedures have been rebuked by Yaf and SMP0328. The spirit of the 3RR policy is to encourage resolution of disputes and it is ironic that the only editor being banned is the only one attempting to follow WP:Dispute Resolution. And, the reporting editor Yaf is one who flatly refuses to follow WP:DR. Yaf describes my edits incorrectly, apparently ignoring my self-reverts with a hope of getting me banned to avoid needing to engage in dispute resolution with me. The first edit, I self reverted. The fourth edit, I self reverted. My prior promise after the last block was to diligently work things out on the talk page, and my other edits were only made after considerable discussion on the talk page attempting to find workable compromises with some success. This is a very difficult editing environment, and my good faith attempts towards collaborative editing have been characterized falsely here as part of a POV fight to get me banned. Notice that this entire discussion began with my request on the talk page "I welcome some collaboration on fixing these problems". May I suggest that instead of blocking me that the more likely path towards resolution would be following WP:DR and a mediation to resolve this dispute. I am 100% willing to engage in mediation, and perhaps with encouragement the other involved editors will change their mind and agree to engage in mediation. Either with a lifted block now, or in 72 hours, I would appreciate help somehow finding a way to convince the co-editors of this article to change their minds about refusing to engage in dispute resolution. Without willingness to engage in dispute resolution, there are very few options other than revert wars with the strategic hope of getting the opposing editor banned. Can you help with getting this mediation started?


 * To be clear, I have struggled for a very long time trying every way I can imagine to find a way to get along and collaborate with Yaf. It is very hurtful that immediately after the granting of Yafs block request I see that he removed my peace offer to get along from this talk page.  Again, how can I find a way towards collaboration in that contentious article, when again and again my attempts at dispute resolution are rebuffed by the other participating editors?}}

I'll have a look William M. Connolley (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Still looking. Quick note: characterising this as "flatly refuses to follow WP:DR" has harmed your case William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked: I'm not comfortable with this, especially the self-reverts. You were still edit warring, so you don't get a full apology; my apologies for that :-). If you want help trying to sort out this mess, come ask me on my talk page quick before I'm de-sysopped William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nordyke
Let's wait to see if en banc review is granted in Nordyke. A petition for a writ of certiorari has also been submitted in NRA v. Chicago (Source). When each request is granted or denied, then such decision can be added to the article. For now, let's simply wait. SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Long reference name
I adjusted the NYTimes cite you added to include the author, date and work to make it consistent with the other cites. While I was doing that I noticed that the reference name was unexpectedly long. ( ) I'm curious whether you are using a new tool or something like that. It doesn't affect the display at all, so I left it, but it does kind of stand out. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mayors Against Illegal Guns
I don't see any evidence that "Move" is part of the group's name, either on its official webpage or in cited third-party RS about it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC) And now we're (ec) on my talk-page. Glad it's all sorted out! SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:NewYorkStateMilitiaCivilWar.jpg
File:NewYorkStateMilitiaCivilWar.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:NewYorkStateMilitiaCivilWar.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being repeorted for edit warring
You are being reported for edit warring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.129.194 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SB
Thanks, SB, especially considering the great deal of work you've put in there yourself. Though, I imagine there's still some work to do there. Among other things, I think the Virginia Declaration of Rights will need to be mentioned again (it was removed as part of the "state ratification debate" section) since it is generally viewed as a precedent to the Bill of Rights. Hopefully it will not then open the door to become a forum for POVs about every other arguable precedent to the Second. In general, I agree it's improved overall, which I attribute mostly to an interactive, cooperative effort. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Cafe Gratitude sign
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images, however, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 05:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandal
Thanks for the notice about the IP-hopping of the vandal. I'll add the other IPs to the list of suspected socks. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Rawles
Having looked into this a bit... My call is that Rawles actually is marginally notable. The problem is that Trasel is trying to make him seem far more notable than he actually is. That's his COI influencing his editing. Patience and a lot of re-writing is what is needed. I think Trasel will be more willing to cooperate if he feels that we are not trying to "attack" his friend... but simply trying to produce a tight, well written article about his friend. Blueboar (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you finished editing the article?
 * OK thanks Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Link requested
This request might get buried in all the other discussion: The link I found for this ratings is MUCH different than the 5 simple categories you provided in the discussion. So please provide me with a specific link you are using that shows the criteria they used to arrive at the rankings shown in the graphic you are wanting to insert. That's not unreasonable to ask, is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)