User talk:Older and ... well older: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 04:27, 5 June 2021

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |algo = old(7d)
-|archive = User talk:Celestra/Archive %(counter)d
+|archive = User talk:Older and ... well older/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
 {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
-|target=User talk:Celestra/Archive index
+|target=User talk:Older and ... well older/Archive index
-|mask=User talk:Celestra/Archive <#>
+|mask=User talk:Older and ... well older/Archive <#>
 |leading_zeros=0
 |indexhere=yes
 }}
 {{archive box|index=/Archive index|auto=yes|search=yes}}
+{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
-Hey there, I wanted to let you know that I submitted the edit you requested for the origin of transgender. Thank you for your assistance!  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ehipassiko|Ehipassiko]] ([[User talk:Ehipassiko|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ehipassiko|contribs]]) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Economics and politics are directly related.  I posted a well referenced section on economics in Gun Politics and you, dliigencedude and Grahamboat decided that you didn't like the sources, like the UN treaty on the black market manufacturing and sales of firearms (which addresses political firearm issues in the States), and deleted the section.  Why would I have anything to do with a group of people who censor the reality of the relationship between economics and politics because of their own ideology?  Wikipedia has a crap reputation for accuracy because of ideological censorship and the deliberate insertion of false material based on ideology.  Go ahead, censor all you want.  Eliminate anyone whose material invades your little fantasy ideology.  Why would I ever even bother to contribute again?  Censor me, I would rather be censored than live in a fantasy.  Impey Barbicane ~  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Impey Barbicane|Impey Barbicane]] ([[User talk:Impey Barbicane|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Impey Barbicane|contribs]]) 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Please review my proposals for revisions to the lede (lead?) for the Second Amendment article and comment on them on the talk page.  Or, if you prefer, respond to me on my talk page if you think we should discuss it further prior to your comment.  Thanks![[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
-:Please help with the Second Amendment. We are at an impasse. Grahamboat and North8000 seem to reject the NYT, the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service as reliable sources for the proposition that I've never seen contradicted -- that from 1942-2000, the federal judiciary took the "collective view," rather than the individual view.  I know you respect the reliability of these sources. Before we seek mediation, I'm hoping you can lend some common sense here.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (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.
-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
-<blockquote><p>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.
-<p>“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.”
-...
-<p>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.
-<p>“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.
-<p>Lund <b>[Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus</b> but said it was “based on ignorance.”</blockquote>
-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)
-[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
-==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion==
-[[File:Peacedove.svg|70px|left]]
-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 "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Second Amendment to the Constitution|Second Amendment to the Constitution]]".
-{| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
-|-
-| style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
-{{collapse top|bg=#cae1ff|bg2=#f0f8ff|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.
-{{center|'''What this noticeboard is:'''}}
-* It is an early step to resolve content disputes after [[Help:Using talk pages|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.
-{{center|'''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 [[WP:FORUMSHOP|already under discussion]] at other [[WP:DR|dispute resolution forums]].
-* It is not a substitute for the talk pages:  the dispute must have been [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|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.
-{{center|'''Things to remember:'''}}
-* Discussions should be [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]], calm, [[WP:TLDR|concise]], [[WP:NPOV|neutral]], and objective.  Comment only about the article's ''content'', not [[WP:FOC|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  {{tls|drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
-* Sign and date your posts with [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs|four tildes]] {{nowrap|"<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>"}}.
-* If you ever need any help, ask one of [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers|our volunteers]], who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/FAQ|here]] and on the DR/N talkpage.
-{{collapse bottom}}
-Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> [[User:EarwigBot|<span style="color:#060;">EarwigBot</span>]] <sup>''[[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">operator</span>]] / [[User talk:The Earwig|<span style="color:#000;">talk</span>]]''</sup> 03:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
-== March 2013 ==
-[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Hello, I'm [[User:J8079s|J8079s]]. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of [[Special:Contributions/Celestra|your recent contributions]]&nbsp;to [[:Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]] because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:J8079s|my talk page]]. Thanks!<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 -->  ''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 '' [[User:J8079s|J8079s]] ([[User talk:J8079s|talk]]) 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)