User talk:Ravensfire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

May 2009

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Federal Reserve System: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve_System&curid=10819&diff=290620876&oldid=290617840 Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Help me

What does this mean?

Democratic commentators have criticized the reluctance of some Republicans to reject the birth certificate supporters, suggesting that ......

Dems on the move (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the source is saying that commentators are going after the Republicans that aren't rejecting the people making the claims. So it's not the claims that the Republicans should be rejecting, but the supporters of those claims. Think "attack the messenger, not the message" By changing "campaigners" to "claims", that meaning was lost.

It's still a pretty badly written sentence, I should have tweaked it more. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You have now reverted Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories 3 times:

• Revert #1 14:22, 28 July 2009
• Revert #2 16:08, 28 July 2009
• Revert #3 17:27, 28 July 2009

If you revert again, you will be blocked. Dems on the move (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Advisory Councils

Although the councils are mentioned in the article, it very long and the info is hard to find. I therefore added the citation to "Various advisory councils". John Hyams (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping to block User talk:76.127.241.68 today. As you could have seen, I had been reverting his annoying edits along with you and other users. He wouldn't stop but somebody finally blocked it. Thank you for reporting him to edit warring;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 01:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page entry on Barack Obama & Chester Arthur birthplace controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#The_certainty_over_whether_Chester_Arthur_and_Barack_Obama_were_born_in_Vermont_.26_Hawaii.2C_respectively

Welcome Sock Puppet

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia this 2009. Ha ha. Right... Since you either haven't been contributing very long or you are a sock puppet, I'll advise you without dropping unnecessary threats to administrators. Do not maliciously revert and delete other people's contributions. You have been warned previously about this (see above). I have also reported your attack to the same administrator's board where you posted a fake list of reverts, allegedly by me. It is not a revert to restore vandalism, by the way. Since you are new to Wikipedia (ha ha) you need to understand that. Have a nice day! Inurhead (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravensfire2002, you (and/or others ie. Bovineboy) cross-posted and solicited people to the discussion on The Hurt Locker. That is in violation of the rules. Inappropriate canvassing is generally considered to be disruptive. It is part of what is called WP:Canvassing. For some reason, you and others are colluding. Someone likely solicited your participation WP:MEAT puppetry or your are a potential sock puppet. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. If you like, I will post the very instances when you and others were cross-posting and soliciting other editors to come to or return to the discussion (canvassing) and I will suggest a sock puppet investigation of all contributors to the page. That might help. Then we can find out once and for all who is using multiple accounts and soliciting other people to get into edit wars. I am going to ask you to stop posting threats to my talk page, to stop canvassing, to stop deleting this contributor's work, and to stop picking fights and edit wars. In other words, to be civil.

Also please stop with the malicious reverting. The plot material you are supporting goes against WP. It is overly long, contains no references, is original writing and goes into dialouge and scene-by-scene breakdowns. Per WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUM The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should be about a more than just the plot. Overly long and thorough plot summaries are also hard to read. The plot needs to be concise. I'm restoring an older, more concise plot with references that doesn't contain original writing and which isn't overly long and which doesn't include dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns such as the one that is posted now. Inurhead (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Public image of Barack Obama

He'll stop arguing if we stop responding. Let the fire burn out.--Loodog (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, he's persistent.--Loodog (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

And I believe your assessment was right. I will be nervous about using my spellchecker round about here till this bug is figured out and worked out. skip sievert (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

The same very disruptive (annoying as in attacking) person has returned after their long block and jumped back into the article headfirst with exactly the same kind of nonsense. ... this time related to a movie/interview.... read=paypal advertisement to a blogspot, among other things. skip sievert (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow sock!

I was simply wondering if he was even aware of WP:SPI, since the accusations have been chronic and plentiful. Maybe now some action will be taken, and the result will be a cease of the baseless accusations. Eh...one can only hope, right? At least I tried. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI FYI

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker regarding the issues at The Hurt Locker and with Inurhead. FYI in case you wish to add any comments about the situation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tax protester arguments POV

Despite the fact that this one statement made by me will not be upheld, the article as a whole is written from the perspective that people who protest the legality of the income tax and the forces that were involved in creating it are ludicrous, and while that may be the case to you, it is not to me and some others. That itself goes against the basic tenets of Wikipedia, as per several Wikipedia tutorials. Paraplegicemu (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and I appreciate your neutral interpretation even though we disagree. We are bound by the limits of our own beliefs and experiences, and some others on Wikipedia act a bit childish and have a limited scope of view, maybe me included.

User talk:JackThompson1

Like yourself I find that extremely hard to swallow. I'll be keeping an eye out to see if they edit again. If they edit without verifying they are Jack Thompson and without filing a request at WP:CHU it will be time to block them for impersonation. If you notice them editing again and I don't seem to be around, please report them at WP:UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (activist) hatnote

Regarding this revert: the (activist) part of that title suggests that it isn't ambiguously titled. Why is a hatnote needed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Printing Money addition to Federal Reserve System

Please see this discussion regarding these edits ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]) to Federal Reserve System. You reverted at least one of thses changes - a discussion is taking place per WP:BRD. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP has added the materiel again, against WP:CONSENSUS, using the same rationale that it is "well sourced". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ravensfire. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your complaint of edit war in the Fed articles

Conversation with editor requested to no longer post here

As far as I know your only valid complaint was to the angelfire link - That link was replace by one to the same exact text" at the Yale Law School Avalon Project which contains the same exact text as the angelfire link. Yale LAW School states that the test of the minutes originated with James Madison. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp Your only other comment of substance is the following one which states that you will make suggestions - something you have never done Specific to this article, the IP editor made fairly substantial changes to the Legality section [1]. There are minimal references (Angelfire.com? Really?) in the additions and a fair amount of it seems to be OR to me. Some of these changes are directly related to the change referenced above. I'm going to go through the section (hopefully later today) and post some suggestions here before making the changes, just to save some drama. Ravensfire (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) I have now asked for specific objections to the material in dispute bymarking that materil "cite needed" - please cease and disist in edit warring, undelete the material you continue to delete, and mark anything in that material that you dispute with "cite needed" so that I can respond to your objections.96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC) BTW: You never did come up with those "specific" objections I asked for. FYI: I will be taking the rest of the day off, so you don't have to follow me anymore today.71.174.142.108 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Really? No specific objections? Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I've also responded to his latest complaint on my talk page. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) YES! no specific objections were made until AFTER I made the above post. My complaint above was on the 22nd, the response you link was posted on the 24th. Your response is nothing more then a pathetic attempt to cover your ass for UNCIVIL conduct.71.174.142.108 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC) No. That was in response to your "BTW" post, and my extended comments directly on your material was made before the BTW post. You probably missed it because of the IP switch. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Fine then, Let me reword my complaint. DURING your BOGUS attacks on me and anything and everything I posted, and aside from your comment about a link, which I promptly changed to the same exact material at Yale LAW school, you did not post one single solitary objection to ANY of my additions - aside from generic and BOGUS allegations of OR and SYN.71.174.142.108 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) You seem to have a different interpretation of original research than what Wikipedia uses. A consistent complaint from every editor that's reverted your changes is OR. You must provide sources for the facts, opinions and conclusions that you want to include. Those sources must directly support the statement you're using them as a reference for. Providing them in the talk page doesn't cut it - they must be in your changes. You're also totally ignoring the settled law of the land in this area - the Legal Tender cases. Until those are overturned, that IS how the Constitution is interpreted. Quoting from the DISSENT in one of those cases doesn't overturn that simple fact. Wikipedia can (and does) mention that some people believe that the paper money is unconstitutional, but it must (read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE) then point out that the view has been examined and found incorrect by the US Supreme Court, and that paper money is legal. And that's it. That view is extremely fringe and held by a very small minority of WP:V, WP:N sources. If the SC takes up the matter again, the articles will change. Ravensfire (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Can't help it if most wiki editors are so ignorant of history that they have forgotten what they learned in high school history class. Again WHAT thoughts or conclusions are OR and SYN and WHAT SPECIFICALLY is original? Also can't help it if the US Supreme Court was packed by President Grant with judges in favor of paper money AFTER the paper money supporters LOST at that level. After the court was packed the decision was 5-4 in favor of paper money. Before it was packed paper money supporters were a minority. Doesn't look that fringe to me. Lastly you never commented on the constitutionality of Congress transferring its powers to an outside body and arguably a private body at that. That is also part of my addition. 71.174.142.108 (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) As others and I have said many times to you about this, ANY facts, opinions and conclusions must be sourced. That doesn't mean the basis for the fact, opinion or conclusions, but you need to find a source that is saying exactly that fact, opinion or conclusion. I'm not going to hold your hand on this - you apparently can't be bothered to listen to what we're saying or read through the WP policies that have posted and see how your posts run afoul of them. TOTAL BULLSHIT - Wiki is rife with "cite needed" and "this article needs more cites" are seen all over the place. For instance two "additional cites needed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System and another here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve71.174.142.108 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Like you, I also can't help what the the Supreme Court has decided. The Court took a look at your belief that paper money isn't legal tender, and rejected it, overturning a previous court ruling in the process. Until such time as those cases are overturned, paper money is legal tender and constitutional. Courts are packed when the decision goes against you, and full of wise jurists when it goes for you. As to the last, I believe that is covered in the Legal Tender cases. This has gotten quite repetative, and I think it's obvious that we're unlikely to convince each other of anything. I would encourage you to post any changes to the talk page and work towards concensus before making them in article. That's up to you, but without major changes, your material will continue to be reverted for the same reasons. Ravensfire (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC) So why is there a freaking LEGALITY section on the ctiticism of the Fed article which states that many think the Fed is unconstitutional. Does somebody think that they unconstitutionally impregnate toilet paper with biological warfare agents? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!71.174.142.108 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Something Constructive

Converstion with editor requested to no longer post here

There is a question awaiting your input here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#An_indication_of_how_low_the_Fed_will_go Look at the bottom FYI: I made it easy for you to follow me this time.71.174.142.108 (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Despite your long winded comment - there is no indication of either a Yes or a No answer. Please examine the simple question and respond with a yes or no.71.174.142.108 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 71.174.142.108

As you have demonstrated that you cannot participate in a civil discussion with someone that disagrees with your views, you are requested not to post on this talk page any further. Any messages from you will be reverted on sight as vandalism. Continued posts here will be report to the appropriate noticeboard.

Bluntly, I've been polite, courteous and bent over backwards to work with you. I've been met with continual demands, insults and attacks. You do not respond to requests from others; you only demand from them. Wikipedia demands a two-way process, and you are only willing to take. Hopefully your editing and style will improve, but from what I've seen of you, I doubt that will happen.

I request that any other editor that sees a post from this IP (or any successor IP's) to revert the change. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chances are I'm going to be going to sleep in a few minutes and I'll wake up to find they've had their talk page priviledges revoked. Right now though, they're getting my edit count up and it's cathartic after the gasket I blew with them earlier. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re

No typo. It's been oversighted. When the user posted the changes from his IM network, he posted it with a bunch of traffic (including that of blocked members). I am confident that anyone able to review the deleted diff will do so. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes it ought to be Dec 2009, I will change that. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

You are right thank you!

I will follow your recommendation!

Regards,

--Seablade (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done!

Thank you!

--Seablade (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yours @ Triplestop et al.

I have been on WP for years and have only recently taken to requests for intervention (which I abhor and which I believe should be eliminated as they are largely used to control content) because of the escalation of unsourced and biased POV pushing regarding Baltic (Estonia has been a particular target) and EE articles, also, the general deterioration in personal conduct. As WP cannot rule on "content", the party on the offensive (that is NOT me) will always have the advantage as any acts to undo content can immediately be branded edit warring. Offliner's evidence and my response, for example, should make that pretty clear from both sides at the EEML proceedings. I neither created the train wreck or participated in the train wreck. The train wreck is the product of those seeking to defile WP for their own purposes and the long-standing meme that someone's ethnic background is directly related to their editorial integrity. (Hiberniantears for example described themselves as third generation Irish American, as I recall, as if that somehow granted their personal POV more objectivity.) I could go on, you may wish to read the Cold War comments I posted quite some time ago. You tell me if I'm being overly dramatic. Best regards,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call

Good call. What an article! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Hello Ravensfire. I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating with me to improve the The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article. You can read an online copy of the book in the Questia Online Library: The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence --Loremaster (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)