User talk:Older and ... well older: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:39, 17 March 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Older and ... well older, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7^talk 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawiki

It appears so. I've fixed it back. Thank you for telling me about my mistake. It goes to say that one must be cautious when out editing in other Wikipediae. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Second Amendment

Nope. "Should be dismissed" is either a statement of opinion or a statement of prophecy (or attempt thereof). You should wait for the verdict to be issued before making such a statement. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment

Hi -- sorry it took me a while to respond to your comments on the Second Amendment -- I did now (at Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#More_than_two_versions). Joriki (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestra -- thanks likewise for a constructive discussion. I like the result; it's clear and concise and gives the proper weight to the versions. Joriki (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your obstructionism in removing minority opinion from the Second Amendment

I don't need consensus to remove a minuscule minority opinion from the article. Minuscule minority opinion do not belong in a wiki article. That is a wiki rule. Period end of Conversation.

You ask how I know know it's minuscule? There has been a standing offer on the Seconds Amendment talk page. All that anyone needs to do is find a second source for the "civic right" interprtation that does not reference Cornell an I wills stop trying to remove that minuscule minority opinion.

So far nobody has been able to do it!

Care to try?141.154.12.116 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's spelled "consensus" as I've had it pointed out to me. BTW, mr. 141..., you're wrong. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My typing sucks! Sue me and that plus $2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

and I am not wrong on whether a minuscule minority opinion belongs in an article. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 :And it's spelled "consensus" as I've had it pointed out to me.  BTW, mr. 141..., you're wrong. --[[User:Nukes4Tots|Nukes4Tots]] ([[User talk:Nukes4Tots|talk]]) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
+::My typing sucks! Sue me and that plus $2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
+and I am not wrong on whether a minuscule minority opinion belongs in an article. See below.
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV
+The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
+If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.[[Special:Contributions/141.154.12.116|141.154.12.116]] ([[User talk:141.154.12.116|talk]]) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)