Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Legobot (talk | contribs)
m Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 7d) to User talk:Celestra/Archive 3.
→‎Thank you!: new section
Line 23: Line 23:


: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)
: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)

== Thank you! ==

I thought the user is anonymously editing others edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Cena&diff=579391318&oldid=579348299 here]. Thank you so much for letting me know the fact! -- &nbsp;&nbsp; [[User:LogX|<font color="#00CED1" style="font-family:Polo" size="3">'''L''' o g</font>]] &nbsp;[[User talk:LogX|<font color="#FF0000" style="font-family:Polo;" size="3.5">'''X'''</font>]]&nbsp;&nbsp; 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:55, 30 October 2013


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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehipassiko (talkcontribs) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impey Barbicane (talkcontribs) 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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!GreekParadise (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.GreekParadise (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I thought the user is anonymously editing others edits here. Thank you so much for letting me know the fact! --    L o g  X   13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]