User talk:141.154.12.116

March 2009

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 on a single page 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. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inquiry at WT:SPI

Hello 141.154. It's my impression that IPs can't open sockpuppet cases, because they can't create pages. Please consider creating an account, using the button at the upper right of your screen. With an account, you should be able to open a case. Still, it is not easy to sympathize with resorting to SPI so early in a debate, before you've explored the other content-based options at WP:Dispute resolution. I trust you don't expect that a highly-contentious political article will be a walk in the park. Another place you might ask for advice is WP:Editor assistance/Requests. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not here to argue

I don't see how engaging in edit wars or violating concensus or 3RR is in your best interest. Please stop. If your goal is to improve that article, you need to start working with the other editors in a calm and respectful way. If you have other goals, I'm not interested. Celestra (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus requires discussion. I have a standing offer on the discussion board to all other editors. If anyone can show that the item in question is not a minuscule opinion then I wills top trying to take it out. That offer has now been officially extended to you.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps this will do.^[1]^[2]^[3] Yaf (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA — The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. The individual rights and collective rights theories were products of later struggles in American history. Individual rights theory was born in the Jacksonian era as a response to America's first efforts at gun control. Collective rights theory emerged slowly at the end of Reconstruction and only crystallized in its modern form in the early twentieth century. The one theory absent from current debate over the Second Amendment is the original civic interpretation. The virtual extinction of the conception was not inevitable but was a product of a long and complex history.
^ Helmke, Paul (December 1, 2007). "The Second Amendment: A Well Regulated Militia". Huffington Post. Furthermore, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, service in a well regulated militia was a civic duty owed to society.
^ Konig, David Thomas (22.1 (2004)). "The Second Amendment: A Missing Transatlantic Context for the Historical Meaning of "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms"". Law and History Review. The protection being sought, this shared transatlantic discourse reveals to us, lay in the maintenance of well-regulated militias consisting of able-bodied men bearing their own arms for that purpose. Indeed, to serve in the militia and participate in this civic duty was more than a duty: it was a civic right of a peculiarly eighteenth-century nature unlike either the "individual" or "collective" models argued for today. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on March 17 2009 to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material is not controversial. It is paid propaganda by an author who was paid over $400,000 by a gun control group to push the party line and which is further a one man minority opinion which per WIKI NPOV does NOT BELONG in a wiki article. My complaint about this material has been on the talk board for about a month and the only supporting source cited was today. THAT supporting source is the President of the Brady Campaign. He does not meet the standards of being a wiki source since he is much more then likely to be a source of paid propaganda on gun issues. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the material, it has to do with your editing tactics. Please read the reason for the ban and seek to build consensus. Further, if it's such a hair-brained miniscule opinion, why are people who would otherwise agree with you arguing for its inclusion? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something about the feeling possessive about the article. One of them even said he agreed that the the material should go after he reverting my edit getting rid of the material. Figure that one out. My complaint on this material has been out there for weeks now. I repeatedly asked if people were against it and the only person who posted that they wanted to keep it could not find a second source. Per wiki rules, if its a common opinion, you can find easily find references, if you can't easily find references it's not common. He could not find references and while he is more then likely unhappy to see the material go, he has not been one of the people that tried to keep it in. All the people that did try to keep it in never made ANY effort to reach a consensus. I didn't hear apeep out of them even after they reverted my edits. I admit to getting bit too gungho at the obstructionist actions of those people and I blew the 3RR rule but every single one of them was acting in bad faith and did not even make a peep when I was trying to reach a consensus on the material.

Like I said I blew the 3RR so I won't ask you to lift the ban, but the people on the other side should get a warning of some kind. Something to the effect that if you don't participate in a debate you shouldn't bitch about the results after the fact.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, I'm a lurker. Try creating an account and then engaging in persuasive discussions on the talk page. Virtually every editor of the 2nd Ammendment article is possessive. Stragely, it seems most of them agree. They're mostly all pumped up about the little things, but the overarching theme of the article seems to suffer. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general class of wiki editors don't come anywhere near the level of people I would associate with or lend my name to. As a matter of fact after almost a year on thee boards I find I have yet to me ONE wiki editor I would associate with. I also decline to join in protest to the generally high level of censorship in wiki articles. 141.154.12.116 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.

[Saul_Cornell_when_born-1] Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA — The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. The individual rights and collective rights theories were products of later struggles in American history. Individual rights theory was born in the Jacksonian era as a response to America's first efforts at gun control. Collective rights theory emerged slowly at the end of Reconstruction and only crystallized in its modern form in the early twentieth century. The one theory absent from current debate over the Second Amendment is the original civic interpretation. The virtual extinction of the conception was not inevitable but was a product of a long and complex history.

[PaulHelmke_civic_duty-2] Helmke, Paul (December 1, 2007). "The Second Amendment: A Well Regulated Militia". Huffington Post. Furthermore, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, service in a well regulated militia was a civic duty owed to society.

[Konig_civic_duty-3] Konig, David Thomas (22.1 (2004)). "The Second Amendment: A Missing Transatlantic Context for the Historical Meaning of "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms"". Law and History Review. The protection being sought, this shared transatlantic discourse reveals to us, lay in the maintenance of well-regulated militias consisting of able-bodied men bearing their own arms for that purpose. Indeed, to serve in the militia and participate in this civic duty was more than a duty: it was a civic right of a peculiarly eighteenth-century nature unlike either the "individual" or "collective" models argued for today. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]