User talk:SaltyBoatr: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:43, 7 January 2024

This user may have left Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr has not edited Wikipedia since December 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

Welcome to the User talkpage of SaltyBoatr

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, it may be a day or two before you receive a reply.
If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.

*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Rezon8 Living

Am hoping for some clarification of your suggestion for deletion. Information that paints an accurate picture does not in and of itself equal Vanity because it is positive. I would suggest that WIKI being what it is, others will no doubt be able to contribute and that, in doing so, an accurate picture is revealed. You want to talk about vanity? How has the Billy Mann entry been allowed to exist for so long? Also, the IKEA page is not without certain negative aspects that seem a bit unnecessary, yet continue to exist. Thanks, Dean.

TUSC token b2b7c4679cceebaba3eea1f39739e896

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token 7aaa90f5dff35780fe0322a027d0a238

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Acknowledgment for your long efforts

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Second Amendment

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{not around|3=December 2013}}
 {{Userpage bar}}
 <div style="border: 3px solid #C80815; background-color: #AADBE0; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 10px 0px; font-size: 90%">
@@ Line 35: / Line 36: @@
 Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
-== Hoplophobia ==
-Per these contributions,[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Hoplophobia] please be advised of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia]]. -- [[User:Uzma Gamal|Uzma Gamal]] ([[User talk:Uzma Gamal|talk]]) 08:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 == Second Amendment ==
-== 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
-<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]]) 16:28, 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)
-== 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,
-[[User:Inijones|Inijones]] ([[User talk:Inijones|talk]]) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)