User talk:Aceholiday

Welcome!

Hello, Aceholiday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! From: (→Netscott) 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google like spell check[edit]

This is currently being discussion on WP:VPR, you may want to join the discussion. Cheers. (→Netscott) 17:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2d Amendment[edit]

First of all, the POV edit was yours. The Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear". Secondly, Circuit Courts of Appeals have disagreed on the issue. The latest and most comprehensive pronoucement was made just a few days ago by Judge Silberman of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who wrote quite convincingly in support of the individual right construction. In any event, being that the question is a subject of considerable controversy, your edit was wildly inappropriate. The current text allows for the ambiguity in interpretation. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusatory? Yeah, I thought your edit was in very bad taste. As to my userpage, I think it's rather spartan. What gives you the idea I am insufficiently humilitous?? And yes, legal rulings constitute a monopoly on constitutional interpretation, you betcha. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Just so you know, I deleted the entire Chabot nose-picking paragraph, and think it must not be reinstated until there is solid corroboration from a mainstream reliable source, as per WP:BLP. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just looked for a second and was naturally drawn to click where it said, nose-picking. One doesn't see that every day. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture - Oxycodone[edit]

I reverted your undo of the cruft-free oxy article. See User:Johnpf Discussion page for the 'official' admin position. I acknowledge my approach may not be ideal though (even if you are the first person to object to the change after 3 weeks). If you have an idea that covers that area without becoming a cruftball please discuss it on the oxy discussion page. Good to see someone with an opinion! WierdJohn 10:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist, the Movie[edit]

You can't possibly think this is an acceptable neutral edit. --RucasHost (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please leave your replies under a new heading. Secondly, I didn't engage in any "name calling". Your statement was obviously not NPOV, obviously OR, and completely irrelevant. The Bible wasn't criticizing the movie so it has nothing to do with the criticism. --RucasHost (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our on-going dispute[edit]

I replied to your post on my talk page, you can read it there if you like. I pretty much said the same thing I said in my last reply, which you obviously didn't read.

For someone who "strives to be open minded" you seem very rigid, especially in your belief that I have come to Wikipedia to promote "unscientific propaganda" and that some POV comment about the Bible containing anecdotal evidence belongs on the article about a low-budget Internet documentary. --RucasHost (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Props & Comment Response[edit]

Hello. Much thanks for you comment on my talk page =) I'm just wondering, is it in relation to a particular article, or is it just a random thanks? I'm not particularly anti-American, by the way, the current climate just annoys the hell out of me. Bring on November!! =) Thanks again! Fin ©™ 18:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been one or two who haven't been too happy with my user page, but they amuse me more than anything. I'm still not too sure who I'd like for the general, Obama's a great orator, and could easily make VP, but if Hillary loses, she's out. We'll see come Feb 5. Laters Fin ©™ 15:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]