User talk:SaltyBoatr/Archive 2

I expected nothing less from you
The ANI trip was completely predictable. You can't even conceed that trying to close a RfC after a couple of hours is hasty, can you? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalk me if it entertains you, I reminded one of the participants in the discussion that it is still going on (so he already knew about it) and notified an editor with nearly 100 edits to the article (making him a fairly significant recent contributor) that a discussion he may be interested in. It was done in a non-POV manner, thus not a violation of WP:CANVAS. However, I do feel that it is not WP:CIVIL of you to address the subject in the edit summary of an edit not related to the topic, rather then addressing it in the discussion or on my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I found your last response to be encouraging and I think there is still hope that this can be resolved in a way that both of us find acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ranchos of California
Thanks for the award, and for all the good work you are doing. Emargie (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Side note on hutaree
User Went against consensus again and i Reverted and handed out a warning, i think these are the proper way to continue dialogue if he reverts again. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Hutaree article
Hi SaltyBoatr, I just reinserted the reference to the teachings of the Christian church in the Hutaree article. I think I reworded the reference a little more neutrally from the last reference. I was wondering if you could please review, and if possible, comment on my reversion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment IP problem
Could you revert our new friend? I'm at three reverts already or I'd do it myself. The admins were kind enough to semiprotect the article for a few hours to help us get him talking. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Full protection
Considering the current edit war, do you want the 2A article locked? If so, I'll make the request as a neutral party. SMP0328. (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Regarding the John Burch society  Immunize  (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the serious effort
Though we may disagree on specific aspects of how Hillary Clinton's relationship with Media Matters should be handled. I appreciate your fair-minded and thoughtful approach to the subject. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I responded to you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:81.100.215.14_reported_by_User:The_Four_Deuces_.28Result:_31h.29

I would really appreciate it if you could tell me how to make a proper complaint about these editors.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My approach to editing the MMFA article

 * A few points in response to your comments at Drrll's talk page. I have said repeatedly (and have meant it) that I don't find the idea of Hillary Clinton giving advice to and/or recruiting support for Media Matters either surprising, or sinister, or even unethical. I also really don't give a fig if Media Matters is fudging in the way it describes its activity or relationships with politicians to maintain a tax exempt status. I'm sure this kind of thing is done all the time in politics. However, the fact that I don't find Hillary's connection to Media Matters (and I think that reliable sources definitely show a significant connection) to be a political scandal, doesn't mean that mention of that connection should be omitted from the article. Blaxthos and Croc went into a big spiel about right-wing memes at the village pump and how this was just another example of one. But even then it was obvious that several WP:RS's had mentioned it, and it was not a difficult task even for someone as clumsy at navigating the internet as I am to find several more. Nevertheless ol' Blax (as is his wont, and in his typically confrontational way) persisted in the idea that people pushing for a mention of Hillary's support for MMfA were Hillary-obsessed right-wingers pushing right wing memes. I'm sad to say he was aided and abetted by you as evidenced by your reaction to my "new" sources.


 * One other minor matter. My putting the word progressives in italics is not done as a sign of disdain (if you notice I made reference to "ordinary, self respecting progressives" in my comments to Drrll). I do it to emphasize the idea that it is the term that many now prefer to liberals and that folks such as young Drrll (who, I suspect, is much more of a movement conservative than I have ever been) probably should use it also. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Far right
What do you think "far right" means? TFD (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess, like all language, meaning depends on the context of time and place so you need to ask more specific to which time and place. I take my meaning from the current zeitgeist, what I read and hear.  Far right means the extreme right side of the right wing of politics.  SaltyBoatr get wet 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The context of time and place is now and everywhere. The JBS exists now and the WP is read everywhere.  Using your definition, the far right would be Nazis, Klansmen, skinheads, Aryans, etc.  TFD (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it, and, "far right" used in discussion of the politics of Early Twentieth Century European fascism is not now and "far right" has a different meaning in discussion of that time. The "where" isn't where the reader is, it is where the object is.  For instance "far right" means something different if the object is discussion of politics of South Africa or Belgium, or discussion of the politics of the USA, even though the reader might be situated anywhere in the world.  SaltyBoatr get wet 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that neonazis, klansmen, etc. are no longer far right? TFD (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on that. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In 1962, Time Magazine said, "The far right ranges all the way from the respectable conservatism of a Barry Goldwater to the vicious lunacy of the American Nazi party. As you can see this was about the time the term entered the language with this usage.  Time explained the "far right" in the same way social scientists had explained the "radical right" in the 1950s.  Unfortunately the term far right also continues to be used in the narrow sense to refer to fascists.  The article clearly distinguishes among Goldwater conservatives, Birchers and fascists.

The real concern here is that we provide meaningful information. Whichever terminology we use, we must convey meaning to the reader. If we say they are part of the far right then the reader must know in what sense we are using the word. My preference is for unambiguous language.

TFD (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be out of the ordinary. I don't get any impression what-so-ever that the general readership is feeling a sense of lack of meaning when Reuters, The New York Times and ABC News uses the term "far right". People understand what it means.  But you don't?  Not adding up.  I think there is something going on now which has an alternate agenda.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page. Thank you, AGK   13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Request for mediation of Gun laws in the United States (by state)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Gun laws in the United States (by state) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK   15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is a separate mediation request from the one above. Will you be indicating your agreement at any point soon?

Why not mediate 'gun laws?'
Hello SB. Wondering why you're not agreeing to mediation of this article. Paties fr/ both sides have agreed. It's the Wikipedian thing to do. Tapered (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am agreeing to mediation if needed as part of the process of WP:Dispute Resolution. I explained this in detail over at that talk page.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=prev&oldid=367207338
I find the edit you made totally unobjectionable but I am sorely puzzled to understand what you meant by the edit summary. Can you elaborate please?--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One source says "have arms" the other says "bear arms". Your bending of the words to be "a right to arms" improperly implies that these two rights are actually just one right.  You can't say that without proper sourcing, that is your personal interpretation, see WP:SYN for the policy.  SaltyBoatr get wet 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the diff.


 * a clause concerning the right to arms.
 * versus
 * a clause concerning a right to have arms.


 * I know I have restricted vision in both eyes (hence all the typing mistakes I make) but I don't see any reference to bearing arms /by which I assume you mean as a soldier) Maybe I need to go to law school...  - but then we don't expect WP readers to have such discriminating sensitivites. I have to say, I still don't get it. I will answer all your OR claims on the other edit soon, but it won't be tonight. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't give up on balancing the Fox News article
Your feedback is requested at the current FNC thread about changing the lede. Thanks. - PrBeacon (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Second Amendment page protection
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted some text of yours on the talk page. Can you please reinsert it in a more approporiate place?
I deleted this text at the talk page


 * Comment At the core, this is a problem because Hauskalainen is describing what he sees as being "truth" in his well considered opinion.  Whether or not his opinion is correct, (and I grant he might be correct), we still deserve a chance to confirm he is correct by reading verification of his ideas in third party reliable sourcing.  For a very long time now, Hauskalainen has not pointed to third party reliable sourcing that verifies his opinion of what is true.  Until that happens, this has the appearance of prohibited original research.  Here is a pointer back to a stable version of this article section that was reasonably well sourced.   SaltyBoatr get wet 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not do so to be obstructive but to ask you, as kindly as I can, to please make the comment under the subheading(s) that I have provided. If people comment higgledy-piggledy all over the place it will be hard for us to make progress. Its NOT that I don't see your point. I know it seems like I am expressing opinion without facts but we can only get to the core issues of you focus on my core issues. If you have a statement to make about my "facts" not being supported, kindly indicate which "facts" it is that you are talking about. Are you talking about the English Bill of Rights "granting" a right. That, in your "stable" version of the article is not supported by a secondary reference but a reference directly to the text (albeit re-published by a university). This is a classic example of why it is dangerous to cite primary sources and interpret them directly. I know I will have the same issue when we get to the context but I'll face that issue when we come to it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Arakunem Talk 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment - why I undid your massive reversal of edits
You are not the arbiter of process and you should not act as though you are. It is not normal practice to perform edits in a Sandbox.No other user engaged in your practice of editing there. The idea of the ´freeze was to get some issues into the open and get a feel for where we agreed and disagreed. If you attempt to force this into a 3RR situation I will report your behaviour ummediately to an Administrator. I have reflected your wish that we express that Malcolm's position of there being a growing development of rights is expressed in the article and quite prominently and early on. However, it is just one view and the counter view, expressed by lawyers on the Supreme Court as well as others is given an equal airing. If you wish to edit the article, please do so from the point of views that emerged during the article freeze. I don't want that time to have been a complete waste. Hauskalainen (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are speaking of when you say "points of views that emerged during the article freeze". The repeated theme that emerged during the article freeze what that you weren't showing your sourcing, and that has not changed.  Show third party reliable sourcing, and show that there is neutrality balance for the weight of POV's seen in reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It means just what I said. I listened to your view that Malcolm holds that opinion - though as we showed, she did not dispute others claims that it was an ancient right when she as been in conversation with them. I have reinserted that back into the article. I have said may times. If you want me to source something just ask. I'll get you a source. The article must express all MAJOR POVs. So far I have only heard Malcolm use it and other who was actually quoting Malcolm. Everybody else I hear seems to agree that the right was an existing one. Even though this is not a major opinion I have made a concession to you and put it in the article. Be happy. I also tok out some of your claims about OR. That was a concession too. I don't think we need those sentences becuase the readers can read the material for themselves. You on the other hand, or so it seems to me, want to remove the contextual text from the article which shows that the right was an existing one; that Catholics had the right; and that the act was intended to codify this existing right - at least as far as Protestants were concerned.That seems a step too far. You seem to be happy to quote a primary source when it suits you but not when it does not.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You and TFD on recent court decisions
I wanted to compliment you and User:The Four Deuces on both of your recent discussions regarding the recent McDonald court decision. I haven't always agreed with your edits, but I have no doubts about your integrity, and when you make edits, I cannot refuse to listen. I left the same edit on TFD's page too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Surprised?
Did you ever figure that Sean Novack and I would be the ones fighting people to not have the Brady Campaign called a "hate group" by a tide of POV editors? We've even been called "anti-gun activists" because of it. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediator Cabal case
Hello SaltyBoatr, I am mediator Bobby122 from the Wikipedia Mediator Cabal. I will be your mediator for the dispute onthis page. Am i correct when I say that the problem is that the Anonip and User:Hauskalainen will not provide references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby122 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, yes, that is the largest part of the problem. A secondary part of the problem involves disagreement as to whether significant contrary viewpoints seen in reliable sourcing, should (or should not) be allowed to be included in the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left Hauskalainen a message asking him if he would provide sources. A possible compromise could be that you put both views into the article with their respective sources and state that there are two schools of thought on the matter. Feel free to discuss if this is a suitable compromise with me. Bobby122 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that Hauskalainen has refused your help with mediation. That said, I would be open to this compromise, with the caveat that both implies two, and I believe there to be three (or four) significant viewpoints seen in reliable sourcing which all should be fairly and neutrally represented.  The trouble here is that the fourth viewpoint of Hauskalainen appears to be original research and still needs some work finding third party reliable sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

TM Symbol
Not sure why you're writing me about this now. The Chowbok bot hasn't removed that symbol since January, which was before you pointed out on the talk page that it was being used for ironic purposes.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

State gun laws
Hi SaltyBoatr. I am more than happy to help trim the article of original research and I want I really want to see a compromise that makes the article factual, neutral, and palatable to both opposing view points. Could you point out some of the sections, statements, or references that you believe constitute original research? Movementarian (talk)  21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2A Mediation
Hi Salty. Would be honored to. See my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Second amendment
I thought I would present my comments here since I am having a hard time following the multiple discussion threads and lengthy debates on the article's talk page. My understanding of Cramer is that he says the right to keep and bear arms derived from common law, and therefore can be used as a source for that opinion in the article. unfortunately, he does not provide a great level of detail, and his arguments are not persuasive. His mention of Coke does not seem to be supported by the passage cited. (See Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt'') and does not address Malcolm's comments on Blackstone. His comments on the Laws of Cnut are interesting, although he does not mention whether these laws remained valid following the Norman Conquest. Missing from his work is how the right to bear arms was interpreted in the American colonies, which had received English law and were subject to the Bill of Rights 1689. I would like to see a better defense of the view that the right existed in common law, but perhaps no one has written about this. When the U. S. Bill of Rights was written however they would have seen Blackstone as an authority, so the issue of whether the right existed before he wrote the Commentaries would not have been an issue. TFD (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt means "laws permit taking up arms against armed persons". Coke wrote, "And yet in some case a man may not onely use force and armes, but assemble company also".  However Cramer does not mention that he was referring to persons defending themselves in their own homes, said that they had no right to go about armed and of course c, 1632 no one would use a firearm for self-defense.  The link I provided is to Coke's writing.  See p. 19 of  Cramer's book where he states that the the origins are in ancient Germanic tribes for whom arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men.  He then adds the Laws of Cnut, Coke and Blackstone to show that the right existed under common law.  My view is that if If the right to keep and bear arms existed under common law, then there should be a legal precedent.  Some writers see Bacon's Rebellion (1676) as evidence of the right existing before the Bill of Rights.  TFD (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for us to analyze and categorize the arguments made by Cramer or anyone else, which would be original research. If we want to categorize the arguments then we need a source that shows there is a consensus that they are categorized into four types.  BTW, what is the "gun control hypothesis"?  TFD (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just relate the opinion expressed by Cramer followed by the opinion expressed by Malcolm. We cannot say there are four different views unless we can provide reliable sources that there is consensus that there are four different views.  The reason I mentioned the weaknesses in Cramer's writing is not that I want my views entered into the article but because I would hope to find a better source for the view that the right derived from common law, e. g., a source that provides sources from before the Bill of Rights 1689 that state the right existed (which would of course be a legal precedent).  I do not have a point of view on what the law was because I have not read enough to form an opinion.  BTW, there are recent Canadian cases concerning the "right to keep and bear arms" which may be decided by their Supreme Court.  This may provide further information for the article since it involves deciding what the law was in colonial America.  TFD (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You just write Malcolm wrote x, Cramer wrote y and DeConde wrote z. No need to compare and contrast their theories or to categorize them.  I do not understand why you call DeConde's view the gun control view.  He says the Bill of Rights 1689 granted Protestants a liberty (i.e., a right).  Parliament took away the right to bear arms from Catholics in separate legislation.  Parliament of course has the right to take away common law rights, which they also did in the Limitation Act 1623.  (Under common law there is no limitation on launching a law suit at all.)  One problem with the sources of course is that they are primarily writing about modern law in the U. S. and none of them are experts on the history of English and colonial law.  TFD (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although we should not use Blackstone as a source for the article, he explains his theories very well and is a source for both Cramer and Malcolm. I suggest you read his section about this topic.  Nowhere does he say that the Glorious Revolution created rights, never does he say that the right to bear arms was created by statute.  While I have not read the page from Malcolm that you quote, it is unbelievable that she would claim that Blackstone said that.  More likely she saw Blackstone as (wrongly) believing that a right created by the Bill of Rights 1689 had its origins in common law.  Please note the section I provided you where Blackstone said the Bill of Rights confirmed the right, he does not say it created it.  TFD (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3 report about the Second Amendment


I've been reviewing the report at WP:AN3. Though it's unclear if you've technically broken 3RR in the last 24 hours, the extremely rapid pace of your edits might be interfering with the progress of the article, so it approaches the point of edit warring. (You have a total of 655 edits to the article). I am more confident that the IP has broken 3RR in the last 24 hours. I propose a solution in which you voluntarily agree to stop editing the article for one month. If I'm the closer of the AN3, I would also most likely impose one month of semiprotection, which would also stop the IP from editing for the same length of time. I'm not challenging your good will, since you have good participation on the talk page. You may possibly be unaware of the degree to which your extremely-rapid editing inhibits others from working out solutions. Others on the talk page do hint that you are trying to dominate the page, and it's hard to totally disagree with them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One month is too long. SB needs an opportunity to respond, and while I think the issues at the page are a problem, any discussion here needs to start from a much more reasonable position. Even if this was well discussed, there's absolutely no reason to suggest a hiatus of this length. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Edit warring at Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
An editor has complained that you are edit warring on this article. See WP:AN3. You have made five reverts in 30 hours. An admin might consider this to be reason for a block. If you respond to the report, and especially if you agree to wait for consensus before restoring the POV tag again, you may be able to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)  You have been blocked for edit-warring on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC
User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:SaltyBoatr/DraftRFC during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hey Mid  (contribs) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

UOJComm (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Hill
What's distinctive about it? Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the word 'distinctive' in the meaning of the word, distinct or autonomous, and I believe it is fair to conclude that the sub-neighborhood bounded by 20th,Valencia,22nd and Dolores are distinct by virtue of their neighborhood association. Also they have their own designated "Liberty-Hill Historic District".    SaltyBoatr get wet 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you use the word "distinctive" in an encyclopedia article, the reader asks why or what is distinctive about it. I'm not asking what is distinctive about it—I used to live there so I know.  I'm asking you to tell the reader, and to use appropriate sources in the process.  Simply saying it is distinctive and pointing to a primary source isn't good enough. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do I read the WP:Policy about this usage of the word distinctive you describe? It seems that my use of the distinct meaning of distinctive is correct use of the English language.  Might you suggest some compromise wording?  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've understood what I've written at all. I don't have a problem with the word, I have a problem with you not telling the reader what is distinctive about it in the article. All you said was that the location was a "distinctive sub-neighborhood known as Liberty Hill".  It is distinctive for a reason.  You're supposed to say what the reason is in the text.  We generally don't call something distinctive unless we explain why.  In this discussion, you've said why, but you need to say it in the article.  For example, it has distinctive architecture from the 19th century that was preserved from the fire caused by the 1906 earthquake that wiped out many of the houses of that time. It isn't the neighborhood that is distinctive, it is specifically the architecture, which is why it is a historic district. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I understood and understand what you wrote. It appears you have ignored what I wrote to you and asked of you at 22:10 UTC.  SaltyBoatr get wet 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's the second reply showing that you did not, and the article still doesn't say why the neighborhood is distinctive. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. When you recently edited American Legislative Exchange Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UPS (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) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Hammersoft
As one of the people involved in the dispute over whether or not a non-free image can be used at Kim Jong-un, do you agree with what I've written in the above page about Hammersoft's behaviour in his opposition to one? Does this match your perception of him? If so, would you be prepared to be co-certifier of that request for comment? Krolar62 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoplophobia
Per these contributions, please be advised of Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:40, 1 September 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. (And in fact, I don't think "you" dispute them at all.)

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) 16:28, 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)

Deleted Third Party Opinion Request
I recently issued a third party opinion request.

It was quickly deleted on the grounds that the page on which I was disputing has an open DRN, and that my request for a third party opinion was "inappropriate."

The DRN was issued by a different user for a different purpose. My request was for a specific exchange with a specific user.

I also don't see any text on the third party opinion request page that indicates the tool cannot be used where there is an open DRN.

I was appreciate any thoughts or experiences you might have in this regard.

Thanks,

Inijones (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
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:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. ''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) 18:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.
Please feel free to comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

dr
Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition 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/List of members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''Please stop making accusations on the talk page. We are actively discussing your concerns, additional attacks are un-needed.'' Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Topic ban
Consensus has developed on the Administrator's noticeboard to topic ban you from firearms related articles and article talk pages. Please cease editing articles related to firearms for 6 months or you may face further blocks and an increased length to the topic ban.--v/r - TP 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Salty - Please note that while you are topic banned only from articles and article talk pages in the topic area that your continued participation in the topic area in other venues such as ANI will be seem as attempting to push the boundaries of the topic ban. You need to get out of the topic and move on to other topics to show us you're making a good faith attempt to abide by it instead of a bad faith attempt to continue to participate in the topic area while not crossing the bright lines.--v/r - TP 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just struck my comments there upon your advice. I still do care about the effect of this ANI policy on the encyclopedia, and silencing my opinion about systemic editor bias entrenched in encyclopedia seems a bit strict.  But, I do care about the appearances that my actions seem like bad faith, so I will shut up.  Thanks for the advice.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two ways to approach that. The first is to wait until you topic ban expires which is recommended.  The second is to open a thread on WP:AN about yourself and lay out your case.  If you do that, focus on your behavior and why it isn't as terrible as originally imagined or how you'll improve.  Don't make accusations against others or it'll likely backfire and you'll get your topic ban extended.  Of course, these are only recommendations, but I'm fairly experienced and have seen many topic bans be appealed.--v/r - TP 20:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The honest truth is that I am now inclined to abandon my donations to Wikipedia entirely, as thousands of hours I have spent trying to make the encyclopedia better do not appear to be appreciated. There are other causes in the World that certainly would appreciate my help.  SaltyBoatr get wet 20:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is what it is. It's not a perfect system, but when you can see it operating on a wider spectrum, you realize the diversity of personalities, politics, and opinions and for the most part we make it work.--v/r - TP 20:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I have seen Wikipedia operate, having made 13,000 edits on 2,000 pages over eight years time. I grant you, 'for the most part', it works.  I don't see it working in this specific instance.  In certain topic areas that have enthusiasm gaps, like gun politics, coalitions of politically motivated editors can 'own' articles over a period of years and use the ANI process to ban neutral editors.  Systemic editor bias is entrenched in Wikipedia. In plain sight.  The neutral tone of voice in this type of article is determined by the energy level of the editors who chose to own those articles.  It is what it is.  And, the encyclopedia suffers from it.  SaltyBoatr get wet 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ALEC
Hi there. I have a favor to ask of you regarding this edit you made back in April 2012 on American Legislative Exchange Council. You added a book reference to a sentence that was already in the article, and quoted a passage from the book in the ref. It appears to me that our sentence isn't fully supported by the passage, particularly the bit about "best practices." I know this is reaching way back, but can you tell me if the quote represents the full source language for the statement, or is there something more than that? If the latter, I don't suppose you still have that book and can post all of the relevant source language? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrapin Crossroads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Rafael (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) 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AS-19 iso.png
Thank you for uploading File:AS-19 iso.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)