User talk:Older and ... well older
This is about the Inclusion of evidence about Corticosteroids for treating dengue shock syndrome which I have requested and you queried about where in the article it should be placed. It should be placed in the section marked Management in the Dengue page. The Best would be after the second paragraph.
Best Soumyadeep (talk)
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 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
A discussion you recently participated in has resumed here:
|Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. If you have questions, please contact me.
A cup of coffee for you!
|My apologies for not being more considerate of your edits in the Gun Politics article. I should learn not to edit WP when I'm time constrained and about to leave my computer for several hours. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)|
- It's not a problem, but thanks for the note. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
List of most viewed YouTube videos
A reply was posted on the talk page of the subject (here) -- you had responded on two edit requests and had made an edit on the article for one of those which was appreciated - thanks! And, if interested, there is additional discussion, commentary, etc. (here and here). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Saw your post today at V talk and took use of your username and then your user page infobox. I'll see that Eisenhower infobox and raise you a Truman (see my user page). Older, indeed <snif>. You're just a youngster. (Of course we're both ancient by the standard of most Wikipedians...) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)