Hello, J8079s, 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:
A tag has been placed on Rotary direct lift devices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your support of my requested move of Geber to Jābir ibn Hayyān. The move has now happened and I've done a bit of patching up of links and some of the content of the Jābir ibn Hayyān article. I'll not be able to do much more to it (or to the pseudo-Geber article) for a week or so, but I'll give it at least a decent wash and rinse when I can.
I've noticed you've been adding {{vn}} to a lot of articles (absolutely correctly). Quite often this is where someone in particular has taken material from a source and added a priority claim; that is, the article only says that so-and-so did such-and-such but the wikipedia article adds the unfounded claim that they were the first to do so.
I have just been removing this sort of unwarranted extrapolation, mostly by simply deleting the priority claim. Do you think it is better to add {{vn}} to these articles instead? I've paused removing such claims for the moment, in case what you are doing is a better way of dealing with this.
Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfifiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay but I've been meaning to thank you for signing the closing summary to this RfC/U. I'm glad that it is now behind us and I hope we never have to go through something like that again.
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.
Thank you for finding Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries. Sorry I dinged you the other day, I was totally in reactive mode. You helped me make my first "big" edit. I remember what you told me: be bold. Must have been a few months ago. Seems like a hundred years ago to me now.
I noticed you just tagged for verification the claims about al-Khazini and gravity in the Aristotelian physics article. The claims there are just as they are given in that article (including the silly comment about gravitational potential energy). What it does not bother to mention is that Aristotle also thought that the weight of a body varies depending on its distance from the centre of the Earth and that it was a commonplace of Hellenistic and later Greek philosophy: did the weight vary with distance? did it increase? did it decrease? does an object have any weight in its natural place? Of course, the cited article doesn't bother to mention this (and reads as if they aren't even aware of the past history of the question) but I think the claim should be either removed or thoroughly contextualised. There are some other problems with that particular source chapter (which I can't remember off the top of my head) and it's on my list to investigate. It's just not quite at the top of that list, yet.
And, I'm glad to be able to say: welcome back.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, I think I´m going to fast. In an effort to revert the work of Jagged85 I started to delete all these supposed inventions. But I think you´re right. I´ll put them again saying that they were descriptions of earlier mechanical devices already known since antiquity. All the best--Knight1993 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke too strongly. There are a few uses of the hyphenated terms you mention, but (checking Google scholar) academic usage overwhelming favors the non-hyphenated forms:
"greco-islamic science": Results 1 - 8 of 8
"greco-arabic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 45
You're right, there are some good sources that use the term and they'd slipped my mind (a senior moment). Nonetheless, it is a minority term and I'm a bit hypersensitive to what David Pingree called Hellenophilia in the history of science. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for getting into an edit conflict with you at Jābir ibn Hayyān. For some reason I didn't notice that you had only just made your previous edit: I'll make sure to leave more time to elapse in future before editing.
My attention was caught by the {{Vn}} tag you had added, which happened to be about an article I had been reading earlier this week. It's not a very good source for that claim and probably the claim should just be deleted or just moved to a new historical section in the Equivalent (chemistry) article, as it is so vague.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent editing on an article I watch. Excellent work! However, I would like to suggest that you try to put a link to, say, the RFC talk page in at least one of your edit summaries when cleaning an article. Perhaps append "see [[WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85]]" to your "failed verification" summary, so it would read "failed verification, see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85". That might help when editors look at the article history in a week, or in six months: they will see the background to this unusual case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding this edit to Lens (optics): can you explain or give me a link to somewhere where the specific problem with this reference or Jagged's claims is discussed? My concern is that Alhazen is important enough that he probably needs to be mentioned, but I don't have enough information to construct a replacement for the text you deleted. In any event, your edit introduced a problem: Alhazen and his book are mentioned again further down in the section. Since you deleted the introduction of this material, the subsequent mention of them is unclear.--Srleffler (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steve I think we need a outline on whats wrong with "Alhazen" and the "book of Optics". The edit in question here is typical "Jagged", that is a good source misrepresented, and an original theory.J8079s (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on top of this, having only scanned the RFC comments and not the evidence, so I will simply point out this revert, and say that I quickly did a WP:CHECKUSER and I am pretty confident that it is just a random revert by an anon. John Vandenberg(chat)08:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edits (good!), but you used braces ({{...}}) in your edit summary instead of square brackets ([[...]]). Also, there is now a better shortcut to use. An edit summary should include "see [[WP:Jagged 85 cleanup]]" (copy the text that you see between the quotes from this talk page). If you look at the history of this talk page you will see how it looks because I included it in my edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your work with WP:Jagged 85 cleanup – some progress is finally being made. One point you may like to bear in mind if the situation arises again, is that WP:CWW says that when copying material from one page to another, we should use an edit summary that contains a link to the source (so the page history properly attributes authorship). Your edit (diff) at Science in medieval Islam might have had edit summary "copy text from User:SteveMcCluskey/SMI, see talk" (which contains a link to the source). I'm sure there is no problem, but I am mentioning this in case you were not aware, for the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did mention on the talk page that it was Steve's work to give him credit but I was unaware there was a policy. your summary would have been good too. again thanks for the help. J8079s (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hi. Saw on talk page you verified last year some entries, like a "lamp", by Jagged 85. Could you be so kind and restore them? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Arab geographerMuhammad al-Idrisi produced his medieval atlas Tabula Rogeriana in 1154. He incorporated the knowledge of Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Far East, gathered by Arab merchants and explorers with the information inherited from the classical geographers to create the most accurate map of the world up until his time. It remained the most accurate world map for the next three centuries. S. P. Scott (1904), History of the Moorish Empire, pp. 461-2.
"The noble and elevating pursuits of science were not neglected under the Moors of Sicily and their intelligent and progressive conquerors, the Norman princes. Geography, astronomy, chemistry, and medicine were studied with diligence and success. Edrisi, whose descent from the royal dynasty of Fez has been obscured by the eminent reputation he attained as a geographer and a philosopher, made for Roger II. a planisphere which represented at once the surface of the earth and the positions of the heavenly bodies."
Hi, you made some deletions from the above article, which I broadly agree with, but you had said you were going to provide links showing where they were judged to be bad sources, which so far you haven't done. Do you know when you'll get a chance to do this? Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw you only shortend the Jaggedized version after it was restored by some dubious user. Were you aware of this or should we revert to the stub again?
Do what you think is best I'm stuck out of town with an Ipad. My version has some stuff that doesn't belong but try to leave an outline that others can fill in. J8079s (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello J8079s. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.
We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of medicine and medical technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabiola (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.
A quick check shows Sufi psychology is a pretty common expression [2] for contemporary studies of Sufi. For context view see Dervish. There is always room for a content fork my advice is this looks like a good faith can of worms and either continue with your merge or tag it and move on. I am going to continue to work on adding perspective to Pre-scientific Psychology and some other areas. I joined Questia before I saw this WP:Questia. I am urging everyone to try it there's a free one day trail. Lots of good stuff. J8079s (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a tabula rasa development of the human mind was the topic of a novel Hayy ibn Yaqdhan by the Arabic Andalusian philosopher Ibn Tufail (1105–1185 CE, known as “Abubacer” or “Ebn Tophail” in the West). This novel describes the development of an isolated child on a deserted island. A later translation in Latin under the title Philosophus Autodidactus (1761) influenced the empiricist John Locke in the formulation of his tabula rasa doctrine.
I suspect this was sourced directly from the Wikipedia article (a) because of the similarity of the wording (b) Locke never used the term 'tabula rasa' (c) it postdates the Wikipedia article (d) the article uses Wikipedia as a source for other claims. Now Wikipedia can cite the SEP, of course.
I wish I'd left the delete.I was new then. As I recall sources say Locke probably read the book. On the subject; Tabulas were out of style by Locke's time he used the phrase "white paper" and possibly "empty cabinet", however no one writes about Some Thoughts Concerning Education with out using the the phrase. Earlier writers think we are born with innate knowledge of logic and use the phrase in a different sense.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pediatrics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aetius, Serapion and Soranus (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.
Do you have any evidence that the Aspasia who wrote the gynocological texts was from Physia? Or did you intend it to say "Aspasia the Physician"?
There should be no footnotes on disambiguation pages (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References), the listed entry either points to an article about the subject, or to an article where the subject is discussed as part of a larger topic. Since nothing is recorded about Aspasia's life, it would seems that the appropriate target would be something like Gynaecology#History or a new history section at Obstetrics and gynaecology. Your references would be placed at the target article. Do you wish to make the changes, or shall I. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though Fernández-Morera's article is thoroughly referenced and he has solid academic credentials, the place of publication is a problem. The journal lacks peer review and has a strong ideological slant. His having authored a paper entitled 'Islamic Warriors' Destruction of a Nascent Civilization' won't help in establishing his neutrality on Islamic culture in Spain. I would suggest taking a look at some of the citations in "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise", which may follow a similar line of reasoning with a less controversial publication history.Dialectric (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I WP:DGF It was just a drive by I don't even edit over there. The "myth" part is misleading its not about agenda based wiki editors. the subject is covered Cohen, Mark. 1995. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01082-X and it's not really a controversy. I find the whole thing ironic as I am the one always pushing for "best sources". J8079s (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of surgery, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Miasma and Joseph Lister (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Anthony's fire (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.
Please be specific. Are you saying the LIbrary of Congress, the New York Times, the Congressional Research Service and several direct quotations from court cases are untrustworthy sources? Or are you saying that a wikipedia article should not show both sides of a controversy? Or are you saying that a four-year old interpretation should be mentioned and the history beforehand should not be? Just saying something "does not belong there" does not consist of an argument. Please make one. Simply disliking fact is not an argument and will not dissuade me, nor will it convince arbiters in an arbitration. So please give me your best wikipedia argument for why you would not include relevant factual material backed up by reliable sources (including the same source used elsewhere in the article). You're the only editor other than North8000 that disagrees with the change. North8000 has conceded that he/she has no source whatsoever to back up his beliefs while I have the Library of Congress, the New York Times, and the Congressional Research Service backing me up. Do you have a contrary source? If you know of a case prior to 2000 that struck down a law under the Second Amendment or found that the prefatory militia clause is meaningless and there is an individual right to bear arms, by all means cite it. Do your research. And if/when you can't find one, I respectfully request you withdraw your objection.GreekParadise (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are way out of line your NYT sources are not WP:RS[7] as with any questionable source if the info is verifiable you will find it elsewhere. Your edit here [8] indicates that you know this. Please remember WP:NPOV esp.[9] and you are responsible for balancing your own edits. You are using Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service to support the NYT editorial there is no place in WP for editorials except as sources for themselves. 67 amicus briefs were filed [10] the findings [11] It is not clear to me what page "the debate" belongs on but hers a source Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute. ISBN9781933995250. Retrieved 24 February 2013. J8079s (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT front-page article from their Supreme Court reporter -- who is also cited in this same article re the McDonald case without dispute by you-- is not an op-ed by any definition. The Cato Institute, however, is clear POV and has no more place in this article than would be a citation from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.GreekParadise (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nunn v. Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Right to bear arms (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.
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.
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.
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. The topic of the Second Amendment is very complex as are most Bill of Rights issues and many words are sometimes required to explain an nuance. This might at first glance appear like we are discussing the Second Amendment, which is not the case, the discussion is explicitly about improving the article and about whether a particular viewpoint should be expressed in the article or not. I'll watch this page in case you need to respond.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As another note, there are several editors discussing quite a few court cases on the page as a discussion over what should be included in the page. This is normal, they are not debating the Second Amendment but rather trying to boil down whether the amendment "protects" a right or "concerns a right." A lay analysis but an outside editor might surmise that they are discussing the second amendment only. That is not the case, they are discussing and attempting to reach consensus on a particularly contentious point. Please allow them to continue.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is about behavior not content. An edit that begins "Hi Username" belongs at Talk:Username. Stay on point. Do not respond to "stray remarks". I am well read on 2nd amendment/right to arms and have access to plenty of sources. I just want to help write a good article.J8079s (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why my discussion of possible sources on the talk page of the article, cites to court cases that can provide a more neutral presentation by showing an individual rights component in prior Supreme Court cases, is somehow considered blogging. Or, are you advocating only collective rights sources should be included in the article, based on your "well read on 2nd amendment/right to arms" claimed status? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's that you are responding to a disruptive user. User Greek Paradise is disrupting the talk page. responding just adds to the disruption. There is a venue for him to brear down his WP:OR at the disput notice board The source you want to add is Kopel, David B. (1999). The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment. Independence Institute. Retrieved 20 March 2013. also on line at [12] We cannot use our own reading of the cases. We can only repeat in our own words what reliable sources say about them. The "States rights" theory of a collective was never strong and not supported by disent in heller. Saying collective right is misleading. See my sand box for a partial bibliography User:J8079s/Sandbox2amnd please help please read Deny. J8079s (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I reverted again. How did the page go from 353,097 bytes to 340,408 bytes if you did not remove something? I believe maybe you’re mixing up copy&paste with cut&paste. 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) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note on my reverts: you and I seem to agree on many of the arguments; perhaps where we disagree is where it should be resolved. I believe that the DRN was premature and discussion should continue on 2A, Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting wide support for this as an anti-disruption tool. I assure you I did not remove anything. I deleted the note at the dispute boards that might explain,the I will check that everything got there. The thread is on the page at least three other places (with no support for the edit as written.) At least this time he phrased the question in a way that other editors could respond. The whole purpose of the board is to clear the talk page. I have given gp a warning per WP:Disrupt I have addressed the issue on his talk I realize this is a case of WP:Assume no clue or maybe he just likes to blog. This thread stopped any pretense of constructive several posts back Please support me in this. It was GP that opened the board and thats where he needs to defend it. Thank for your support. J8079s (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair to indiscriminately accuse everyone who has recently posted on the 2A talk page of inappropriate behavior. I have reverted your addition to my talk page. -—Kvng04:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting me will never resolve this. I have simply asked people to agree that authoritative relevant sources may be included in the article, verbatim if necessary. And I've been told that reliable sources may not be used if they show that any court upheld the militia theory, i.e. if some editors -- without a shred of evidence -- have a subjective belief that a case was wrongly decided. I am shocked to find that people believe their own vague recollections trump my sources. That's why I've gone to the noticeboard. I simply want a ruling that you cannot remove a reliable source from wikipedia without a valid reason.
"I don't like it" is not a valid reason. "I think there's another source that contradicts yours but I don't know it" is not a valid reason. "You are cherry picking but I haven't read your source so I can't tell you how you're cherry picking" is not a valid reason. "You're disrupting the page" is not a valid reason. And "I don't like what you said on the Talk Page so I'm going to censor your comment header" is definitely a wikipedia violation.
We all need to take a deep breath. Look at my original edits. If you don't believe they faithfully copied the sources, say so and be specific. If you do believe I'm faithful to the sources -- and they are relevant and authoritative -- the debate ends. Leave me to my facts and sources. And you can include yours. You can't exclude facts from wikipedia just because you don't like them or don't believe them to be true. If you could, wikipedia would become a blog and not an encyclopedia.GreekParadise (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notice is about behavior not content the talk pages are not a chat room. As to content the states rights theory is dead,not surprising as it was never healthy. J8079s (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are in 99% agreement. Can we focus on getting that 99% updated into the article, then discuss the 1% we disagree on? That would let us close out lots of other issues/discussions that make our consensus building much more complicated. If we can get the lede updated with what everyone agrees on, then we can focus on gaining consensus on just individual word/sentence edits that are much simpler, without the larger debates.
Again to be clear, I agree with you on a personal level. My reading of the sources is the same as yours. The problem is that it is our reading of the sources. It is easy enough to put together the founders quotes, declaration, constitution, etc, but the fact that we do have to put it together makes it WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The SCOTUS rulings, variious commentaries etc are all talking right around our points, but they do not directly make that point. Very few sources are going to be directly quotable/paraphrasable to show that 1%. It takes WP:SYNTH to put them together. The few secondary sourecs that do directly make that point are generally less reliable/notable, and there are equally reliable/notable sources making contrary arguments. I think those contrary arguments are wrong, but we cannot ignore their existence. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have access Questia [13] piles of good stuff "scholarship" heavily favors the standard view. Google books is good too. That there are equally reliable/notable sources making contrary arguments someone needs to find them. Losses for the standard view: the decisions are narrow and SV wanted incorporation via "privileges and immunities. Gun grabbers have turned to a limited right subject to restrictions and regulation. We are on very solid ground, I was just driving by but I know the wiki rules. J8079s (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of psychology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Timaeus and William of Auvergne (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of medicine and medical technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nestorians (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priscian of Lydia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Timaeus and Phaedrus (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.
Hi J8079s! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you were not notified GreekParadise filed a dr on this issue your participation there would be very much appreciated. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "cite book" template won't fetch. I fill in the isbn or the url and click but nothing happens the wheel just spins. J8079s (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this has something to do with the big "https:// issue" that Wikipedia is currently experiencing. You can try turning off Preferences → User profile → Always use a secure connection when logged in, logging out, doing a full cache clearing, logging back in, and try again. If that fails, try removing the "s" from https:// in your URL addressbar (that should be at the top of the page) and see if that works. Let us know what you find. Happy editing! (I've got this page watched until there is a resolution of some sort for you). Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name="KeyserIrby-Massie2012">{{cite book|last1=Keyser|first1=Paul T.|last2=Irby-Massie|first2=Georgia L.|title=Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek Tradition and its Many Heirs|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VQy6b2g3TtQC|accessdate=3 September 2013|date=2012-11-12|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781134298020}}</ref> Works fine in safari not in chrome I probably did some thing to chrome settings. J8079s (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
From some of your contributions to pages we've both worked on, I gather that you are well informed on the history of medicine. I recently took a look at the Herbalism article, and in a current rename vote on the talk page, a few editors have more or less said that the current structure is a mess. The rename is incidental, but I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to restructure/ split off content - would a 'history of herbalism' make sense, or is there too much overlap with the existing history of medicine articles? Dialectric (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcmaeon (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of mathematics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simplicius. 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.
I assure everything there is intended for improving Wikipedia articles. As a stand alone article it is incoherent although some sections may make it to mainspace on their own. I assume you are concerned with [[14]] I think I am in compliance. If am misunderstanding your concern pleas let me know. J8079s (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The references are all in the subsequent pages!! The reason for the distinction of their origin is highly important to understand the abrupt end of the islamic golden age!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.129.159 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bartholomeus Anglicus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pliny and ISAAC. 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.
Please stop condoning and/or contributing to this neo-Nazi history revision and intellectual censorship. The establishment of a tyrannical empire is not possible without strict gun control policies that ensure total military domination on the part of the empire. The Nazis, like the Roman Imperialists whom they emulated, were both expert propagandists and experts at subjugating and enslaving the peoples they conquered and unjustifiably deprived of their liberty. What tends to bother people about the very idea of Nazi Gun Control Theory, the reason they find this theory so dangerous, is often because they realize that the same theory can be applied to similar policies in modern day Britain, Germany, the E.U., the U.S, or even their own country. That is the reason this form of censorship is so persistent and widespread. As it was in Nazi Germany, where it was first necessary to deprive the populace of their means of resistance before depriving them of their other freedoms, the same pattern is evident in the emergence of new empires. Be forewarned though, as it was with the fall of Rome, Egypt, and Nazi Germany, so shall it be again for all future empires that feel the need to rob humanity of their most basic rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, J8079s. 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.
It appears that you are maintaining a page of evidence of purported violations by editors, including myself. Doing so goes against Wikipedia policy. See WP:POLEMIC. If you do not remove it on your own I will nominate it for deletion. Felsic2 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, J8079s. 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, J8079s. 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.
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, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of mathematics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. !BSGT! (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
