Jump to content

User talk:209.6.69.227

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.6.69.227 (talk) at 17:22, 18 August 2012 (→Notice of Arbitration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome...

Hello, 209.6.69.227, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested in conservatism, you may want to check out the Conservatism Portal.
[[Image:Template:LogoCon|30px|left]]Please accept this invitation to join the Conservatism WikiProject, a friendly group of editors dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism. Simply click here to accept!

Again, welcome! – Lionel (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

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.

All entries relevant to what facts to include or better phrasing. Will try to make that more clear. Thanks.01:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Two "delete" comments in the AfD for Sandra Fluke

Hoary (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all Hoary links and comments deleted by Wikipedia Administrators, along with page on Sandra Fluke he was edit warring on209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Attempt to "out" the editor's identity.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy#Sandra Fluke biographical info

You asked: "Raven; let me get this straight; you are saying that it isn't the policy that needs to be changed, but it is the religious beliefs THEMSELVES that are the problem and need to be changed. Is that correct?" • No; I expressed and intended no such imperative. I was speaking in the declarative voice, of "IS"s not "SHOULD"s. In logical-set terms, look at the set of all health insurance plans, run for colleges/universities, and for employers. Group in one subset those which cover contraception, and in another subset those which don't. Is there any doubt that overwhelmingly the second subset will pertain to colleges/universities and businesses which are owned by religious groups whose beliefs forbid contraception, and that this will be the reason for the policy exclusion? That is why I said, "'Beliefs' against the use of 'contraception' started the whole issue." That's the point of divergence. But my next sentence was: "As long as patients needing medication are at the mercy of what other people (not their physicians) choose to believe or not believe, such problems should be expected." Ah, there's a "should" -- the corollary being that people needing medication shouldn't be at the mercy of others' beliefs (besides their physicians'); patients' Freedom of Religion matters too, especially when their life and health depend on it. And no church's "Freedom of Religion" should extend to taking other people's away, as by withholding patients' medications against their will. But churches (and people) can believe whatever they will. Raven (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so people can have whatever religious beliefs they want, they just can't act on them? The essence of a (in this case) Catholic University is being Catholic. It is run by a Religious Order, that specifically caters itself to a population that wishes to foster Catholic ideals and Catholic values. If you don't value those values, you have other choices. There are two complementary parts of the First Amendment (the 230 year old established way of dealing with conflicting interests), the Establishment clause, which says Government will not compel anyone to join a religion, and the Free Exercise clause, that says Religions are free to believe what they will without Government intervention. We are not arguing that the Catholic University should be able to interfere with what people do outside of the campus, but on whether a Catholic University should be forced by the Government to abandon its Catholic principles.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "OK, so people can have whatever religious beliefs they want, they just can't act on them?" -- How is this news to you? People can believe, and have in fact believed, that those of other religions than their own are all in service to the Devil, all scheme to destroy the lives and souls of the True Believers, and accordingly all deserve to die... as soon and as horribly as possible. Yes, they are free to have that belief. And no, they are not free to act on that belief by torturing and murdering their designated witch-hunt targets. That's been the state of US law for some time now. Having any wild range of beliefs is perfectly legal; but having those beliefs does not relieve one from obeying secular law. Nor does it entitle one to impose those beliefs upon others, for instance by denying them vital health care. If you have a heart attack while shopping at a store owned by a Christian Scientist, he can't refuse admission to the ambulance paramedics to treat you and take you to hospital, while he stands over you reciting the entire works of Mary Baker Eddy to heal you spiritually. Aren't you glad of that? Raven (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Posner discusses this same point more eloquently, so I commend her post. --Raven (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Raven;
Religions do not have any law behind them to "impose" anything, and so do not have to be constrained. Government does, and therefore also does need to be constrained. The only recognized power religions have over people or people over religions is that of Free Association, which is why Constitutional cases usually cite both principles. If you choose to associate yourself with a religion or religious institution (in this case, Georgetown) you agree to abide by their rules; no-one compels you to do so. If you don't share those values, you cannot be forced not to leave and abide by them. I found Posner's arguments to be not very consistent. She cites a case where a group of students ELECTED to go to a State School with values, written into a code of behavior that they did not agree with. Just like Fluke, except Georgetown is private and religious, and therefore protected. They then demanded the School change its policies to accommodate them, and the School refused, also just like Fluke, except their School is funded by taxpayers. The First Amendment arguments were thrown out because the student group was NOT actually of a religion, just the beliefs of a group of Students who called THEMSELVES Christians, which is NOT protected. Again, you don't HAVE to go to Georgetown, but if you DO, you can't expect Georgetown to change to suit YOU. Religious Freedom Restoration Act clarifies, and yes, religious beliefs actually DO exempt people from civil laws, as in war drafts Conscientious Objector to doing drugs Employment Division v. Smith.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Religions do not have any law behind them to "impose" anything,..."< -- That much was communicated by "Nor does it entitle one to impose those beliefs upon others...". Religions may not be lawfully imposed upon others, we agree. Thus the store owner can't lawfully forbid the paramedics to give you medical assistance. And Jim Jones couldn't lawfully kill off the outsiders who'd come to visit Jonestown (along with all of his own believers), though he did it anyway. It's that "anyway" bit that needs constraining. Fanatics tend to disregard the law and others' rights, infamously with "fire and sword".
    "... you agree to abide by their rules; no-one compels you to do so. If you don't share those values, you cannot be forced not to leave and abide by them." -- Not lawfully, no, but in fact... I gather you've never heard of people being invited on religious retreats and not allowed to leave until they'd converted. The Unification Church ("Moonies") are especially noted for this, but they're not the sole offender. The very things you say don't happen, do happen. Arguing that there's no law making them happen, so they don't need to be guarded against, is like saying there's no law requiring murder and robbery, so we needn't worry about those either. More reading: [1]; Steven Hassan. --Raven (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Raven; welcome back, always like the back and forth. The problem with cults is the same as with the mentally incapable or minor children of, for instance, Christian Scientists. There is a question of whether the association is "free", meaning voluntary. There is no question that when an adult CHOOSES to go to a Catholic University, for instance, they are making a free choice, and as such voluntarily agree to the religiously-determined principles that institution is run by. The Constitution defends your right to go or not to go to a Catholic University, and defends the right of the Catholic University to be Catholic. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war between Arzel and MelanieN

Thanks. Seems to be a legitimate communication problem better relegated there than on the article page.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the joke

Thanks for adding the whole joke , it was something I was also thinking to do the clear problems with a part of the joke, due to selective insertion - Youreallycan 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI Report - You should see this.

I'm surprised to not see a notice on your page about this. I guess it slipped Goethean's mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rush_Limbaugh.E2.80.93Sandra_Fluke_controversy - Xcal68 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xcal; Thanks, but also (ironic) Thaaaankks...... Noticed it a few days ago, figured I would let Goethean ramble on, petard hoisting, for as long as I could avoid it. Also not feeding the stalking troll. Fortunately this is among the DUMBEST of Goethean's many DUMB writings, and easy to settle. Will do so immediately. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the spam Goethean is protecting all over Wikipedia is a partisan talking point issued by Think Progress. In the middle of the whole RL-SF flap that saw floods of unreliable numbers competing with each other, TP (good acronym) relased a number, 142, of lost sponsors that was 3-5X higher than anyone else's, or about 100 sponsors higher. Looking at THEIR list, the WaPo's self-identified left-leaning columnist, and Daily Kos, de-bunked the number, by pointing out that TP included 98 sponsors that just don't want to advertise on political or racy programs. Sponsors like Hallmark, which would never and has never advertised on Limbaugh, Beck, or for that matter, Maddow, Olberman, or anything Goethean calls a RS. Goethean has spammed every radio program mentioned (on WikiP pages) and the SF-RL page with this NON-FACT and edit warred to keep it up. As you noticed (by ACTUALLY reading the source cited), the edit description is in fact, just the relevant quote from the source cited.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Kos (which I am sure Goethean will now condemn as a Manchurian Republican, just waiting to disagree with TP) article entitled "Rush Limbaugh has not lost 98 advertisers.", three days after the ridiculous post by TP, is here [[2]]--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I find most ironic of all (as you alluded to), is the case Goethean is attempting to make against you, could just as easily be made against him.
I wonder if he was just counting on some admin not checking the link regarding the edit subject...or was it just ignorance... - Xcal68 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just read your responses on that page. Watch things like "Goethean also lacks basic reading or comparison skills...etc" Those are considered personal attacks, not to mention, people won't take you as seriously. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now here [[3]] --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the accusation(s) of COI against you are hollow, I do feel that by creating an account this will help you head-off such attacks. Widefox (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revert

From WP:RTP, our guide to refactoring talk pages:

"Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  emphasis added

You've changed two section headings that I created at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council and immediately posted to, and reinstated your preferred wording after I reverted your initial change. I object to the changes, and I'd like you to revert them.

The assumption everyone makes in viewing a talk page is that the editor whose comment first appears beneath the heading is the one who chose its text, so effectively, changing a heading I created gives a false impression of what I posted. For example, your change of the heading I created entitled simply "Protests", to your preferred "Protests - Questionable notability?" merely because you deem them "non-notable", as you put it, gives everyone who reads the section the false impression that I am of your opinion, since my post is the first after the section heading.

Changing a section heading you created, after other editors have already replied beneath it, produces a similar effect, although admittedly not as emphatic. But it, too, is a form of talk page refactoring. Please revert all the changes you've made to headings on that talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI; I am coming to Wikipedia as an editor first, and am a stickler for making clear what and who and why in good expository style. The title you gave initially would not have told a new reader what you were talking about. Re-read it, and agree it may have been more strongly worded than intended. Have reworded, but do not think that I am going to edit war over this. Please feel free to revert to "Protests" if you wish.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing remotely unclear or ambiguous about "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". Are you going to revert to the original subject headings, including the one for the "800 documents" section, and refrain from editing others' talk page contributions in the future, or not?  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's "not", evidently, since you've made edits after I posted this second request. I've again restored the titles I originally gave to the two talk page sections I began. You've been warned previously by other editors not to change their posts: If I see you do so again, you'll end up at the appropriate noticeboard. Similarly re your battleground behaviour, e.g. your multiple remarks about what you're pleased to call my "rambling" and "nonsensical" entries and your section heading of "Ummm.... You do know what EDITING is", to mention just a few of examples.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, 209: the fastest way to get blocked/topic banned is to violate the arcane "behavior" rules. If you get blocked the guy who reported you will completely change the article while you're away. If you get topic banned you'll have to edit zoology articles for 6 months. Keep your nose clean and your finger on "undo." Hahahahaha!!!!!– Lionel (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women

Please don't list old AfD discussions as you did with War on Women at todays log‎. If you wish to AfD an article then I suggest you read WP:AFD & once you created the deletion then & only then add it to today's log. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you need further help then reply below. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May have not done this correctly, would appreciate help. Article was AfD, Deleted, then someone reposted, mostly same problems except WP:QUOTEFARM substituted for WP:OR, tagged for Speedy Deletion, declined but with proviso that the decline was just that it was different, no decision on if the problems remain. Several attempts to address problems with edits and on Talk page, no success. Do not know if this is second request or new request. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed by an admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women (2nd nomination)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't get the chance to explain broadband went funny, no another User just nominated it himself so you should go ahead & vote, in future just follow the steps 1-3. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated, and sorry for the time used.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curry Todd

Do not call text you disagree with "spam." There's a talk page for resolving disputes.--Jprg1966 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jprg; You recently tagged me in Curry_Todd as a result of my use of the word "spam". Let me assure you that the description is appropriate and used advisedly. The word as I used it refers not simply to the individual entry, since an individual entry cannot be spam, but to the habit of the editor of circumventing the appropriate Talk page (the relevant one is American Legislative Exchange Council, where I have discussed this topic at length). ALEC is a 501(c)3 organization, and it is utterly POV to label it a lobbying group, and a pejorative to label it right-wing, since it is actually Centrist/Libertarian. The editor does NOT refer to Talk pages, but INSTEAD repetitively inserts the phrase "right-wing lobbying" into dozens of pages, wherever ALEC is mentioned. I assume my edit came up on some Bot, since I do not see any evidence that you are an involved editor (another problem with the ALEC page; Wiki-lawyering and canvassing, both on and off-Wiki)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I see. Carry on.--Jprg1966 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick and courteous revert. Admit the edit LOOKS harsh if you just see it alone. A second click, and it is obvious; takes a third to realize its urgent NPOV. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider creating a username.

I think it would be polite and well received. Just a suggestion. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like 209.6.69.227. It has character, lol. The only real advantage to having a username is you can edit semi-prot articles. So keep in mind when someone wants to kick you off of an article they'll goto PP and get semi-prot. – Lionel (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While your address certainly does have character to it, I also heartily recommend you register! You've proven quite eloquent (and also quite controversial...) in some of your arguments, and I think you'd make a good editor. Plus, since you're editing from a shared ip, it'd prevent any confusion about attribution (and you'd get to edit semi-protected articles, too.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Entrepreneur's Barnstar
The Entrepreneur's Barnstar is given to recognize new editors who have made great strides to contribute to Wikipedia.
Keep up the great work!
– Lionel (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proving a Fake Newspaper is not a WP:RS means proving it is a guy in his attic with a blog

The below posts are all related to edit warring sillyness at the ALEC article. Basically, there is a self-styled activist that has a blog, which he posts to a website he owns, the Rochester Citizen (evidently wanted to start a newspaper 2 years ago, but did not succeed, now left with domain), mostly following around self-styled activists. Some editors insist on edit warring to cite the Rochester Citizen as a WP:RS. Proving beyond any doubt that it is NOT a newspaper, and therefore NOT a WP:RS means proving that it is a guy in his attic with an attack blog, which was done. Editors, including the edit warring ones, now come back and say that, since it is proven that it is a guy in an attic with a blog, information about the Rochester Citizen is in fact outing a guy in his attic with an attack blog, and therefore revealing personal details. Not kidding. Wow.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. User:KoshVorlon.User talk:KoshVorlon 00:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no vandalism. Perhaps a mild case of disparaging a living person--but nothing even remotely egregious enough to rate this warning. That said, 209, be careful when writing about living persons--even on a talk page.– Lionel (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me get this straight.... I am disparaging a PERSON (who was un-named) because I said an ALLEGED NEWSPAPER was an unreliable source, and is in fact a blog. It is only if the newspaper IS, as I said, actually a person and his blog, and NOT a newspaper, as you allege, that discussion of a source could possibly be a PERSONAL attack. How exactly do you call a source unreliable (a WP essential), without calling it unreliable (which you call an insult, and therefore vandalism). --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI about you adding personal information

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet is asking to Censor information that proves Binksternet provides FALSE information. The information Binksternet removed was with regard to a FAKE newspaper that B asserted was "(Credibility check okay on The Rochester Citizen news. Replace ALEC blog response with WaPo brief summary. Adding Cronon refs and text.) " I have no objection to personal information being removed, once it is agreed that it IS personal information, and that the source is utterly UNreliable. HOWEVER, information that the Rochester Citizen is in fact NOT a newspaper, but someone's personal attack blog run out of their attic, and thus cannot be used as a WP:RS involved proof, which is ample, that it is NOT a newspaper. I was not "outing" a WP editor, and logically I was only "outing" a person if everything that proves it is NOT a newspaper is accepted as fact. You cannot "out" a WP:RS newspaper. Everything that is being removed was information about an alleged newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all just calm down. The Citizen is not RS. Let's just delete everything sourced to it and be done with it. – Lionel (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 30 May 2012 (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.

Only warning

Stop screwing around with formatting of discussions, whether talkpage or elsewhere. It is not helpful and creates a lot of unnecessary difficulty in following them. If you do it again I'll block you for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


WP:TEA

Please keep your comments WP:CIVIL, in spite of the extreme provocation you are receiving, and avoid violating other Wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP). Although I generally agree that your edits add valuable information, but they also often remove information which is accurate, and reliably sourced. For example, in regard your most recent edit, Cronon is an historian and a state employee; his supporters note that as an historian, the FOIA requests violate his academic freedom. His detractors note that he is a state employee, and hence prohibited from lobbying. Although clearly unrelated to ALEC, wherever discussion of that incident occurs, both factors should be discussed.

Also, following WP:INDENT, although not a policy, does help your credibility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at ANI seems to be in favor of blocking you. I'm not in favor, yet, as you haven't edited (other than your own talk page) since my comment, so we cannot tell if you're willing to follow my advice. This may be your last chance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke

I placed a Request for comments on the Sandra Fluke page. I would ask that the bio be left until we have concenus. Casprings (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, RfCs MUST be neutrally worded, yours is not, and you ignore the issues already discussed on Talk. Second, consensus was already achieved on Talk. Putting up a RfC to delay the proper, by consensus and argument, removal of content, is also inappropriate. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Talk Section on your edits

I started a new talk section on your edits here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a problem with YOU, not the article, I am leaving this here. With regard to Talk page headings;
[1]

Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history.

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the heading. I think the talk page is heading towards a consensus.Casprings (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy". Thank you. EarwigBot operator / talk 05:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these actions are a substitute for making arguments on Talk, which for some reason, you are either unwilling or unable to do. I was hoping that you would actually explain what issues you had in detail on THAT DRN page, and get input, but no such thing happened. Without that, it is pointless for me or the other editor currently telling you to make an argument on Talk to restate edit summaries or arguments; OUR arguments and edits are already explained on the appropriate page, several times. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

  1. ^ [[4]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.6.69.227&oldid=508009114"