User talk:SaltyBoatr

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

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.

Patience

I commend you on your patience in dealing 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)

James Fontaine

Well done, I commend you for having your references ready so quickly. I would make a sugestion to you though: try to add a few inline citations to the article to firm up the information, it will help with the referencing situation. If you haven't done so already I suggest dropping a message on the talk page for the biography wikiproject and ask them to evalute the article; since it is within their scope as well they can help with formatting issues and other related matters. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry bout that:bob13377

sorry about that one edit... wont happen again... promise, k? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob13377 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth...

... did you fix that so fast? Is this something you get paid to do? I would hope so. Otherwise, I can only picture you as an obsessed Pohlad-apologist who constantly monitors his page, and that just creeps me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.148.2 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your time, skill, and patience on Constitutional militia movement‎. You did a great job of compiling and summarizing reliable sources with the neutral point of view under difficult circumstances. Wikipedia is better because of your involvement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

You were already approved for VandalProof. β^_command 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Slow vandalism

Hi. With respect to your note at WP:AIV, long-term slow vandalism can be treated by the use of the template {{uw-longterm}}. After that, as long as the action is within a reasonable time and particularly if it demonstrates a pattern, you should be able to report the problem to AIV or WP:ANI. I hope that this helps. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Please don't report vandalism that is stale to WP:AIV, as you did here. AIV is for urgent, current vandalism. Please only report a vandal who is active now, has been sufficiently warned, and has vandalized after a recent last warning. Do not use automated editing tools to make incorrect reports, as such tools can be taken away if persistently misused. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the coaching[1]. I don't know where would be the proper place to report a user account used entirely for vandalism, but which is not presently active. If not WP:AIV, is there some where else? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to report them at all. If they're not editing, they're not vandalising. And if they're not vandalising, there's nothing to report.

If they reappear (and have a username; different advice applies to IP addresses) then they can be reported based on them having had the full set of warnings last time and another upon reappearance.

If they don't reappear, ignoring them saves administrator and vandalfighter time for use against active vandals.

If they are vandalising but it is not clear; is complex; is intermittent; or it cannot be summed up in a single sentence; then WP:ANI is your friend.

Don't let the severely and fatally mis-named tick boxes in Twinkle let you think "if I tick this, it makes it true". It doesn't. Happy editing! ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that I did not dumbly rely on the Twinkle 'tick boxes', using words I carefully commented the nuance of this vandal when I reported it to WP:AIV.

What confuses me in this instance is that being a lapsed vandal appears to be OK in the eyes of AIV admins. I find this bewildering, as I don't see how timing matters. A vandal is a vandal. I must conclude that vandals are acceptable if they evade quick detection. Rather what matters is the immediate act of vandalizing. This concept confuses me, but I guess I can learn to deal with it. This user which I reported would have been banned indefinitely had he/she been caught four weeks ago. But when reported today, he/she has successfully gotten away with the 'crime'. I don't get the logic in that. I am only trying to understand what is the consensus, (or if there is a consensus) on how to deal with vandals. I am learning, it is not the vandals that are the problem, but rather the vandalism. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gropegate

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gropegate, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gropegate. Thank you. Dlohcierekim 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Antisexualism

I did not "vandalize" this page. I added information to it.--71.203.147.175 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer

This is a copy of my answer to your comment in the alzheimer talk page. Best regards:

News are not a reliable sourcing but can give you clues on the reliable source that lies behind (in this case a published scientific article: see [2]). The article seems quite promising and in the future these kind of treatments may be useful for the people with the disease. However its only a unique case (only one patient) and therefore we can not be sure that that the effect is related to the treatment. Due to the thousands of studies going on looking for treatments for the disease there is an agreement only to include in the Wikipedia article only those studies that are alredy in phase III of the clinical trials (the last phase before being used widely). Thanks anyway for providing such an interesting article. --Garrondo (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I also had a response to you on the alzheimer talk page. It would be fantastic if everything we see mentioned in the news shows effect to change the disease course, but of the 60 drugs here [3] only 5 are on the market with an indication for Alzheimer's. Even the phase 3 compounds have a higher likelihood of being discontinued versus approved (using historical norms for the category). The cynics might want to call it "potential treatments that are unlikely to make it to market," but with enough attempts, some of these may be approved. --Chrispounds (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

please keep discussion about articles on their respective pages

frankly, i don't know what your latest comments are about. i have never edited the 2nd amend article - or at least, it's been a year or more if i did. again, please discuss articles on their respective pages. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I answered here[4]. And, at times user talk pages are necessary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

please stop the harrassment

i reverted your edit this morning. once. 'warning' me about 3RR is nothing but harrassment. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to collaborate with you, not harass you, but your response has been to evade and engage in edit war. More here[5]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

warning an editor about 3RR after a single revert is harrassment, not collaboration.Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. The issue is to avoid edit warring. Your behavior in the last week+ has been a clear edit war. Instead, let us work this out collaboratively. Your quick 'single revert' this morning was part of the edit war you have mounted, spanning several days, plainly violated the spirit at the heart of WP:3RR, and deserved a warning. See also WP:EW, which describe it better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i disagree. i see this as being much closer to bold, revert, discuss. these are exceptionally contentious issues, and even though discussion has been heated, for the most part it has been civil, and productive. i'm sorry you disagree. Anastrophe (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am more than happy to do dispute resolution over this with you, but sorry, when you do reverts like you did just this morning claiming a book is not a reliable source, and then admit to not having even read the book. Well, that is much more like edit warring. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology for Gun Politics

I apologize for making a mistake when making an edit summary for Gun Politics. Unfortunately, I have said it was citation #89, however it was citation #88.

Please be sure to remove those fact tags because I will not have the time to check. Mapletip (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, jumped the gun.

Sorry, I have a tendency to accidentally flip out sometimes after misreading a diff, lol.

In case you see this [6], SORRY. God, I'm an idiot, man.

Maybe it's just lack of reading comprehension or I try to read things too quickly? I was almost about to post a report on you on WP:ANI before I realized I had misread what you posted. Yes, your source is reliable and the article is currently crap. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment Intro

I'm not the only person to have made edits post-consensus. If you don't want edits to be made, then full protection should be placed on the Introduction to that article. Otherwise, edits should be allowed as with any other part of that article, or with any article that's without full protection. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Stop taking this dispute personally. I'm not attacking you. There are people who agree with your version of the Introduction, and those that agree with mine. I'm not attacking you, and I don't feel that you are attacking me. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See here[7], you characterized my good faith, sourced edits as 'arrogant'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Amendment

United States v. Emerson states that Emerson cited state Supreme Court decisions construing the Second Amendment. (The current language is "The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the text and history of the Second Amendment and its attendant caselaw (including many state supreme court decisions)") If you believe this is incorrect, you might want to look at that article. --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

talk page

Q:[8]

A: please respect the notice at the top of my talk page, and engage in discussion of articles on their respective article talk pages, not on my user talk page. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Q:[9]

A: discuss article changes on the article talk page. how much clearer can it be? your question pertained to the article. we're all editors here, challenging every editor's edits on user talk pages is quintessentially counter productive - for reference, exactly what is taking place in this exchange, which is an utter and complete waste of time. please discuss article changes, edits, improvements, errors, whatever, on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Q:[10]

A:please stop harassing me. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I've removed 65.111.197.194 (twice now) - my edit summary here explains my rationale. Any problems, give me a shout - if they vandalise from now on, feel free to re-list. Thanks. _GB^T/C 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, Dave removed it the second time. Thanks! _GB^T/C 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)