User talk:SaltyBoatr

welcome SaltyBoatr 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Amar and Black

Hi. I don't have Amar's book, and the page you cite is not available online. Would you kindly quote for me the passage that you think indicates Black discounted federalism? Thank you.Ferrylodge 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've got it now. See here. Which paragraph are you relying on? Black was willing to invalidate acts of Congress based on federalism, as Amar writes on this page. Black merely didn't think that Amendments 1-8 were about federalism. That doesn't mean he discounted federalism in other constitutional provisions, like the 9th and 10th Amendments.Ferrylodge 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article you cited was from 2001, the article you commented on was from 2004. I could be mistaken, but how can an article from 2001 apply to a finding from 2004? Mikieminnow 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Do you think that this might be a better document (edit: Better source document) to link to: http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/ethics.php

Mikieminnow 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Read Wikipedia:3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

hoplophobia

I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent attention to this article. It has really helped to break a deadlock between two contributors. —BozoTheScary 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--LWF 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Right to bear arms, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yaf 00:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits are in good faith and are solidly based on Wikipedia policy. My edits have been throughly explained on the talk page. I have tried every way I know to join with you to collaborate on the editing of that article, with no success yet. Will you agree to participate in a dispute resolution process to end this edit war? SaltyBoatr 14:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Right to bear arms, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yaf 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The two edits which you call 'vandalism', [1] and [2], are actually good faith incremental edits, seeking to find a mutually acceptable compromise with you. I still would very much like to find a compromise with you. While you have so far ignored my invitation to participate in dispute resolution [3][4]. I would like to suggest once again that we agree to a dispute resolution process to end this edit war. SaltyBoatr 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There not good faith when the consensus is against them and they've still been repeated.--LWF 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

True consensus it something that is built. See Consensus decision-making, "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision.". That is not what we have here, as my concerns have simply been shouted down. SaltyBoatr 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut --BillyTFried 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Militia (United States)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Militia (United States) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 70.108.97.185 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SealOfPacifica.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SealOfPacifica.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Parker - I'm not sure what you want a source for. The statement you deleted was simply a cite to legal commentary on the case, like all the other cites to legal commentary on the case in this section. It included a cite and source for the articles, like the other cites to legal commentary in this section. The articles themselves are fully footnoted. Can you please put back what you deleted? Thanks.

creeks

You got it, I had guessed that two creeks one leading to Rockaway Beach and the other running through Calera Valley were named Rockaway and Calera Creeks but they were unmakred on the USGS maps, thanks dude. Do you know the names or a directory of other unamed creeks or forks in the area, or anywhere in the Bay Area which is what i'm most interested.Cholga^talK! 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done see: Calera Creek and Rockaway Creek (California)Cholga^talK! 23:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

San Pedro Valley County Park

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of San Pedro Valley County Park, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/smc/department/home/0,,5556687_12313317_12345100,00.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 21:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Davy Crockett Speech

Friendly answer: The speech is attributed to Crockett, but there is admittedly some doubt (which is mentioned in the article) as to the authenticity of the quote. The commentary ahead of the speech is somewhat moot as we are not referencing the commentary, but the alleged words of Crockett.

In the bigger picture, I haven't objected to what appears to be you beginning a wholesale removal of all links to constitution.org, without any general consensus developed that such a removal is warranted. As long as you are finding sources you perceive as more reliable and replacing links to constitution.org, I feel no damage is done to the articles. In this case however, you removed a link without providing an alternative, which I feel is an overall step down in article quality. Please don't try WP:POINT if you don't like Jon's edits. I'm hopeful that his editing (and sourcing) can be improved if we try to constructively engage him in talk. - Hoplon 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In what way, then, was your original question friendly? Was it asked with good intent, or to draw forth answers you could challenge? - Hoplon 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Patience

I commend you on your patience in deaing with contentious issues and editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

2A intro

As I mentioned, I have a friend who is a writer assisting in a proposed draft of a 2A intro. They have no interest at all in the 2A as far as I can tell, so should be in theory unbiased. We're drafting via IM at the moment. Care to participate somehow? Not sure what methodology we could use, but I'm sure we could find something. Arthur 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)