Thanks for your note regarding this article and "broken links" I caused. The manual of style calls for links to not normally be used in headings. Accordingly, AWB removes them as a matter of course. Typically the alternative is to use the linked term in the body under the heading and link it there. --LilHelpa (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NPR. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Sorry Aprock. Thanks for pointing out that I was in violation of 3RR. I lost track. I always used the talk page before editing. I am sure neither of us wants to engage in edit-warring so let’s commit to reaching a consensus before any further edits on NPR. Thanks.Grahamboat (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPR edits
Thanks for catching my mistake on the (federal,) state and local. I misread the preceding text. You are correct, the source indicates 5.8% from the sum of those sources, not just state and local.
By the way, it looks like we're all working on a solution for the "indirect government" funidng percentage. I think there's probably a really good combination between your text and references, and the comment DRRL made. Take a look at the Talk if you get a chance.
Hello, I'm a retired Wikipedian, and I was curious about understanding something a little bit of a side-topic to the Weiner debates. My question is (and I'll post a follow-up question if you'll allow) is why you believe that his resignation lessens the significance of the past 2-3 weeks? I'm sure you heard all the Breitbart stuff too, and followed this just as much as I have, if not more. I'm curious why you think his resignation "stops all this" rather than it marking the culmination of the buildup, and the beginning of the end... Sorry if I got a little artistic, but I saw your edit history and I admire your passion. I was also extraordinarily passionate about Wikipedia 2-3 years ago. So why do you think this leap of logic is kosher sequiter? It seems like you're saying "because of this, therefore that" when I kinda saw it the artistic way I described. The scandal now has a beginning, build-up, climax, culmination, and now it's winding down to its ending. In my heart, I think he resigned to "re-commit" to what matters most--his wife Uma and his unborn daughter. I think I explained my thoughts pretty well about how the resignation kinda "fits" into a beautiful month-long event which has tons of artistic value, storyline value, and has many moral/ethical/family lessons as well. 67.77.168.127 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 67.77.168.127. I don’t think the significance has lessened. All the germane facts should be included in the Main article. However, much of the detail in daughter article is no long relevant or is over covered. Pelosi’s call for an investigation is now moot. The five sentences calling for resignation can be handled in one. The poll information no longer has much significance. The time-line, which keeps appearing and reappearing, is redundant. The article is starting to look like a daily tabloid. In six months most of the minutia will be gone. As others have suggested perhaps it is too early to make a change. I am not suggesting minimizing the noteworthy facts of the scandal – just condensing them into the Main article. BTW starting 6/18 I will be away until 6/27. Thanks. Grahamboat (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the stellar response! I agree that the article, if it is to be kept, will require some work. It's easy to criticize a page in its current form. On Sunday, I'll spend about an hour trying to make some productive edits to the scandal article. I agree that the Pelosi investigation is now a moot point, but from a biographical POV, this article is crucial to be included in an eternal encyclopedia like the one we're all building. Have a great 9-day vacation, and I look forward to collaborating on the article some more when you get back. Take care, 67.77.168.127 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm trying to start work again on the Weiner article. I know we have differing viewpoints, which is why I'd like to invite you back over there again and bring your shovel (unless you have a map, lol) and I'd like to have a civil discussion over at the article's talk page, and see what unfolds organically, ya know? I hope your vacation went well, and that you missed Wikipedia. Cheers 67.77.168.127 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 May 2012.
The request for formal mediation concerning SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
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.
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.
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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia: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 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.
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.
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) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry maybe I’m missing something. How did the page go from 353,097 bytes to 340,408 bytes if you did not remove something? What authorization are you using to unilaterally determine where the tread belongs? I think any possible resolution will happen on 2A talk page. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all there as far as I can tell. Making the same post over and over is WP:Disruptive. With the thread over there we can move on. If you will not un-re-revert we will have the same mess again. What ever you decide you must help police the talk page per guide lines. thank you J8079s (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.
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)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Cassatt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bard (horse) (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prada gender discrimination case may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
08 January 2014}}</ref> Prada denied all charges and countersued Bovrisse for defamation.<ref>((cite web | url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/08/25/national/prada-countersues-plaintiff-
Minoru Matsutani | date= Aug 25, 2010 | publisher= The Japan Times | accessdate=08 January 2014}}</ref> The case generated worldwide attention and Bovrisse received the support of many women’s
Grahamboat - You have been changing the contents siding Prada. We find many of your explanation and edits discriminating against women and the objective of civil case distorted. Your facts should come from official testimonies, NGO reports and media based on these actual documents. We made changes to make it from social improvement perspective which is the vision of Wikipedia.
We put back the facts concluded from international NGO reports and legal testimonials shared by media. Distorting the legal case facts by your individual opinion is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.188.116.119 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.
Also it is customary place your post at the bottom of the TALK PAGE.
Grahamboat: Thank you for correcting some technical issues.
You need to be careful about how you write about women's rights social issues. Many of your edits are discriminating women and your women's rights knowledge should follow updated legislations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamptou (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.
I always try to respect woman’s rights. In this case I believe you are confusing women’s rights with a claim of an individual. A claim that was rejected by a court of law. To try to spin it otherwise is POV.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lixxx235 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Talen Energy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Grahamboat,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talen Energy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
This company does not even exist. "Talen Energy is a proposed new electric generation company". It isn't sufficiently notable to be considered encyclopedic content if it doesn't exist yet.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SEC. 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.
Hello, Grahamboat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Grahamboat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Grahamboat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
