User talk:Richwales/Archives/2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UCLA Band

You sent me a knowing stating "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at UCLA Band, you will be blocked from editing." You also posted, "rv laser incident; an allegation like this demands a source; if it really happened, it will surely have been written about in the LA Times or other news sources".

Perhaps before you accuse someone of vandalism you should check your sources. I see you went to UCLA and was involved in the music program, and perhaps the band. Why don't you use your connections to check with the person handling this matter for Gordon Henderson, Jennifer Judkins? Better yet, why don't you ask your student newspaper, and the LA Times why they did not report the incident? You could also go talk to your band member friends and ask them about it. If you want, you can also listen to the broadcast of the game from differnet web sites. With your background, you should be able to find them. I actually have other proof of the event, but do not want to make it public out of respect for the source. But like I said, with a little effort on your part, you can easily find out the truth.

Honestly, if you wanted to remove the post, you should have removed the post and said that you did not want something negative about the UCLA band showing up on the UCLA Band Wikipedia page. Editing history to maintain a certain image is not honest.

In any case, after you do a little homework, I will be looking forward to an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uclaucla (talkcontribs) 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who put the "vandalism" notice on your talk page. That was done by a user named "Ucla90024".
I did revert your comment about the laser incident, and I stand behind that action and do not intend to apologize for it (although, for what it's worth, please note that I did not use the term "vandalism" in my revert summary). The burden is on a person making a claim of this sort to back it up. You were reporting this alleged incident, so it is your responsibility to cite a reliable source. Negative claims of this type, in an article about a currently active organization consisting of living people, risk violating the spirit (if not the letter) of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and must be promptly removed if not properly substantiated.
Frankly, I have no objection at all to negative material in the UCLA Band article, as long as the material is substantiated by a citation to a reliable source. An incident such as the one you brought up is extremely likely to be a criminal law matter that should already have become a matter of public record, so there should be no need to rely solely on an anonymous source (or to withhold substantiation in order to preserve the anonymity of a single source). And, although I imagine I probably could find such a source "with a little effort", that is your job as the person who wants to mention the incident in the article. Richwales (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wong Kim Ark sons sigs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: OK for this JPG file to be deleted; it was replaced long ago with a PNG version. Richwales (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Wong Kim Ark sigs.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wong Kim Ark sigs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: OK for this JPG file to be deleted; it was replaced long ago with a PNG version. Richwales (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural born citizen of the United States

stop undoing the natural born us citizen article. you don't even have evidence to back what you are editing. please read this [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinanwolfgazo‎ (talkcontribs)

I am extremely familiar with 8 USC 1401, but you and I disagree as to whether that section of the current statutes does or does not conclusively define what a "natural born citizen" is. I stand completely behind the edits (including reversions) which I have made in this article. Rather than restate my views here and now, I'll ask you to please reread what I have already posted to the article's talk page. Richwales (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

8 USC 1401 allowed many US citizens to run for president, who were born overseas, for example, John McCain, George W. Romney, Chester A. Arthur, did you even read the full article. Please do more research. if you have very good evidence, which of course you don't and can't obtain because it doesn't excite, then we can debate. sinanwolfgazo (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

With all possible respect, I believe you are still missing my point.
The most likely majority consensus on this issue is, indeed, that a "natural born citizen" is in fact the same as a "citizen at birth" as defined by sections 301ff. of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1401ff.), or earlier statutes from earlier times. To date, as far as I'm aware, no one who was considered to have been a US citizen from birth (according to whatever acts of Congress regarding citizenship were in effect at the time of their birth) has ever been prevented from running for, being elected to, or succeeding to the Presidency on the grounds of not being a "natural born citizen".
But that is not the same thing as saying that this is the one true, settled, accepted definition of "natural born citizen" that should be showcased in the introductory, leading portion of the article. Technically, the question of precisely what "natural born citizen" means is still open, and it will most likely remain open until and unless an actual case gets decided by the Supreme Court, or until and unless a subsequent amendment to the Constitution either clarifies or repeals the "natural born citizen" requirement. Even then, it will still be relevant for us to discuss the history of the debate over the issue in this article.
Significant non-fringe debate continues over exactly what "natural born citizen" means, because a sizable minority of people continue to argue cogently for other interpretations of the phrase. These people are not in the majority, to be sure, but they are still part of mainstream discourse, and their positions need to be acknowledged and treated fairly and even-handedly in an article such as the one we're discussing. Richwales (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ok finaly we got somewhere. Ok i will agree that the definition of a natural born US citizen will not be defined 'until and unless an actual case gets decided by the Supreme Court, or until and unless a subsequent amendment to the Constitution either clarifies or repeals the "natural born citizen" requirement.' That i can agree and oblige. will we then have to wait another 4 more years. thanks sinanwolfgazo (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Paata Burchuladze singing Tavisupleba.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Paata Burchuladze singing Tavisupleba.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Russavia Dialogue 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) --Russavia Dialogue 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Leon Fresco

Would you be willing to do me the favor of editing my biographical page? My name is Leon Fresco. If you look at my original page I tried to post (which was flagged for understandable autobiographical concerns) you will see it was very detailed and all supported by objective sources. If you have any questions, please contact me. I would be happy to edit any page you would like me to edit in return. Many thanks. Leonfresco73 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[copy of the reply which I posted on Leon's talk page] Hi. Thanks for thinking enough of me and my skills to ask me to work on the Wikipedia article about you. I really don't feel I would be in a good position to take on this task. Someone else affiliated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Law might be better suited to doing this. Sorry I couldn't help. Richwales (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP discussion (again)

Replied on my talk page. Milo 08:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Northern Cyprus

I see that you have blocked a number of contributors to Voting for move to North Cyprus as sockpuppets of VivaNorthCyprus. Will you act along the same lines for the rest of the novice users agitating in this section, or should we turn to a sock-hunting admin? --Zlerman (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't block anyone. I'm not an admin. I was simply expressing a concern and hoping that an admin can help sort things out. Richwales (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see User:Happy19April2009, User:Elderbrother45, User:Sisamvleda on Voting for move to North Cyprus. They are all identified as blocked socks and your name appears on the history page of each blocked user. That's why I wrote to you. A mistake on my part? If you have no objection, I suggest turning to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise with our sockpuppetry suspicions. Or do you have another admin in mind? --Zlerman (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I see why you were confused. I noted that these users had been blocked, and I went in after the fact and updated their talk pages. But I wasn't the one who identified them as sockpuppets or did the actual blocking. I'd be fine with asking Future Perfect at Sunrise for assistance in sorting this out. Richwales (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)