From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English. ro-2 Acest utilizator poate contribui cu un nivel intermediar de română. fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, TMLutas. Thank you for your work on George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rumania, 1906, and the '03 Medicare act. Judging from the work you've done, it seems that your fortes are in history and politics; you can find plenty of articles in need of help in these fields or in others at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.

You might find these links helpful in starting new articles or helping with existing ones: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, and About 'Show preview'. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you'd like some help from the community on starting to edit, you can sign yourself up at the new users log. If you have any particular questions, you can see the help pages, or, for individual help, feel free to add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name on talk pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Thank you for your contributions; I hope you continue to help us.

-- Djinn112 00:28, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that you've been here since November '03; if this is a repeat greeting or none of the info above is anything new to you, sorry for the redundancy. -- Djinn112 05:53, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 System of facts and opinions 2 Dispute resolution for Virtual Inheritance (object-oriented programming) 3 Moller 4 Request for edit summary 5 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards 6 The Schlock thread 7 John Michael Botean 8 Deletion/tagging 9 shotguns 9.1 =============== 10 =

[edit] System of facts and opinions

On your userpage, you write about the idea of a system of facts and opinions that shows the logical reasoning behind each step. I thought you might like to know that there's a similar idea that's already been implemented here. This isn't quite the same thing that you were thinking of, but it's a step in that direction. Unfortunately, much of it is pointless silliness, but it's still an interesting experiment. Cheers! --Mr. Billion 21:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution for Virtual Inheritance (object-oriented programming)

Just wanted to let you know (from your comment on discussion page) I added some recommended changes and put in the articulation for the semantics of Virtual Inheritance.

Please feel free to review. I'll be removing the 'dispute' status (as per your recommendation) in a few days.

I still have to add the class Figure/Square/Circle/Triangle examples. Will add some good concise references after I update the examples.

Thanks much ahead of time.

Shawnk --Shawn wiki 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moller

Moller advances that FAA certification date by one year every year, and has been doing it since 2003. It's always two years in the future. He's been doing that for a very long time. See [1], where he claimed he was going to have FAA certification by June 30, 1976. That's right, in 1974, 32 years ago, FAA approval was two years in the future. --John Nagle 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Salut, salut, dom'le. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards

I noticed your comment on bogdan's talk page. Perhaps it's more logical to discuss the issue with the person who closed the AfD? (Or start the process of deletion review) V 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I came over here to say the same thing. :) -- Ben 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Schlock thread

Hi! I’m sorry I haven’t replied earlier, but when I posted the URL to my talk page in that thread, the blog software appended a full stop, so your reply went to a page that I didn’t watch. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ursa Major Awards, I think the ‘I hate furries’ comment was definitely outside of what is considered acceptable here and in no way a sound rationale, but—without being able to look at the deleted article—I find the evidence for the notability of the awards, as presented in the debate, very weak. Based on the debate, I would tend to agree with deleting the article. The deletion process is based on good reasons, not democracy, and apparently the nominator was right in that there was no evidence of importance; in fact, I can’t find any, either. With my hypothetical decision on this in mind, I would not find it necessary to keep an article whose only claim of notability was by the awards, but, conversely, an article that mentioned the awards but would remain notable and verifiable even if the mention was removed should be kept with the mention.

Regarding your suggestion to ‘resurrect’ the awards article, I would do it if I had enough sources with which to write it. At the moment, I have none. —xyzzy_n 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Michael Botean

I hope you don’t mind, but I looked at your contributions and noticed your comment at Talk:John Michael Botean. Can you please clarify whether the permission was granted for use on Wikipedia or for use by everybody and whether it included releasing the material under the GFDL? Unless the permission was to release the content under the GFDL for use by anybody, we cannot keep the content on Wikipedia. —xyzzy_n 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that you haven’t actually said what the permission was. Can you please quote it on the article’s talk page? It must permit releasing the text, including the parts which you did not write, under the GFDL. This is not clear from what you posted on the talk page so far. Releasing only your modifications to the original text under the GFDL is not enough.

By the way, when starting a new section on a talk page, please put it at the bottom (unless there is a good reason to do otherwise) or just use the ‘+’ link next to the ‘edit this page’ link, which does that automatically. —xyzzy_n 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gone, looked. Since they don’t mention any permission on the website and you don’t want to provide the necessary details, shall I just tag the article as {{copyvio}} and be done with it?

I’m not in the habit of contacting the copyright holder for a work that has been copied into a Wikipedia article. Either whoever copied the material (in this case, you) already has obtained permission and can post the statement of permission somewhere for others to check (which you don’t seem to want to do) or there is no (sufficient) permission (to publish the content anywhere under the GFDL) and it gets deleted. Either way, there is no reason for me to go bother somebody else.

Note that I’m doing this even-handedly. That means I treat a copy of a church website as seriously as a copy of an AP report. And in either case, I won’t wait until 2010 to have the copyright status clarified. —xyzzy_n 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to ask. For what it’s worth, it would have been better to find some good sources and write the article from scratch.

As for procedure, no, I’m not following any guidelines; I am loosely following the policy Wikipedia:Copyrights. (Loosely because I didn’t tag the article as a violation right away although I suspected that the permission you obtained was insufficient.) I do understand the matter well enough not to need a step-by-step manual. You should have been following Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, but I’m not so much interested in those formalities.

I asked a fairly simple question. You’re evading it. Unless you provide a direct answer, I see no reason to continue this discussion here. —xyzzy_n 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not actually said what the permission was. Now following process. —xyzzy_n 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion/tagging

You have expressed an interest in the practice of putting up for deletion articles that needed to be tagged instead. You are therefore cordially invited to contribute to, review, clarify, and/or discuss a working draft on my userspace of a policy that needs to be clarified on Wikipedia, User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging. Balancer 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shotguns

I can appreciate your question, and I suggest that a neutral compromise is to use the literal definition as written in Miller, and as written the Firearms Act, 'shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches'. That way there is no ambiguity of definition, and no risk of POV push. BruceHallman 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. First, you say 'pretty much like', but 'pretty much like' is a form of original research and is not the same as 'is'. Much more neutral to just use the exact wording found in Miller ruling than to stretch the facts. The Miller article mentions the 'military use' extensively. Also, Cases v. United States establishes the military use of trench guns, so what is the big deal of your complaint? Also, the Miller decision had four points, and the legal standing does not just hinge "make or break" on the one point you are focusing upon. BruceHallman 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ===============

You wrote: "The difference between the conclusion of the Court and the physical history and real military use of those weapons means that there's grounds for reversal there."

Obivously, this is your opinion, not the court's, or they would have reversed already. The article should be about what is actual per WP:ATT. Not about your opinion WP:NOR.

You wrote: "That the Court got the facts so wrong in *the* seminal 2nd amendment case for modern jurisprudence is noteworthy "

They did not get the 'facts wrong'. They simply said:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia ".

You are leaping to a fallacious logical conclusion that if evidence of historical military use was presented they would have ruled differently. This is a huge logical leap. They could easily have ruled that trench guns do not help preserve the modern militia. Your logic is contrived: That the court would protect private unregistered weapons simply because of any possibility of military use? By your logic you read Miller to say the courts would strike down regulations on bazookas, stinger missiles and nuclear bombs if presented evidence of a military use.

In truth, I expect that after the 1903 Military Act, the court acknowledged the obvious. The militia at this time is the National Guard and is not the militia of 1789. The National Guard does not as a 'reasonable relationship' ever again expect to ask recruits (called up from the unorganized militia) to bring their own weapons to military service, nor even for recruits to come 'self trained' in the modern arts of war.

Be reasonable, the 1789 militia you dream of is archaic and anachronistic, and it not the actual militia defined by the 1903 law. The Miller wording clearly says "...at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

The court has balanced a minuscule benefit of having citizens self-trained in trench gun use for trench warfare against the very real problem of gangsters and bootleggers having unregistered sawed off shotguns in crime. This is a normal and reasonable trade off while making a public policy decision. BruceHallman 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =

Thanks for your reply, but our dialog is not efficient if you do not respond and address my questions and concerns posed above. You have not addressed my concerns about avoiding original thought and original research, required per Wikipedia policy. Your claim of 'factual error' is not founded in the wording of Miller and fails the WP:ATT test. Your association between a gangster's sawed off shot gun and a military weapon known as a 'trench gun' appears to be not found in the wording of Miller and fails the WP:ATT test. Your invitation to explore the State codes about militia is interesting, but not really relevant to an article about the federal constitution, and a court case about a federal law. BruceHallman 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)