Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQL^{Query me!} 04:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Legality of bestiality by country or territory. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Thanks for keeping the second amendment sanctuary page updated.

• • KingnunandRhysandfan:*:* 00:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please color this green. Effective tonight! Cknapper (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cknapper:Sure. Can you provide a source?Terrorist96 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can soon. The news should hit the interwebs in a matter of hours. I was the commissioner who introduced the resolution and we passed it tonight. Cknapper (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cknapper: Do you know if Mitchell City has passed or will be passing? Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, don't forget to update the date in the caption under File:Second Amendment Sanctuary counties.svg at Second Amendment sanctuary whenever you update the file. Thanks. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your recent edit there. I wanted to explain why, as you did a fantastic job of paraphrasing the source. It's my opinion that although the general opinion of Reason.com at WP:RSN was that strictly journalism from them was anywhere from somewhat to very reliable; they do such a poor job identifying what content is journalism, opinion or research, that it's generally a poor choice. In this particular instance, the coverage seems implausible. The jury in the sentencing phase of the trial voted that the sentence should include trademark forfeiture. The judge simply did not impose that as part of the sentence, something that is within his legal discretion. Both the Reason story and your excellent paraphrase of it strongly implied that this was a precident. It isn't. If he would have imposed it, it was his opinion that the appeals court would overturn it. If he had imposed it and the appeals court did overturn it, that would be a minor precedent (it is the 10th Appeals, after all...). So, please 1) discuss on the article talk page, 2) provide other sources and 3) consensus as to what to say will be needed. Frankly, without the patch bit, this is a sentence in the history section. John from Idegon (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and BTW, the existing precedent on trademark forfeiture is that it's appropriate when the company is strictly an illegal enterprise. Several appeals courts have upheld it, and I believe the main case involved Pirate Bay, the illegal internet marketplace. It's been used against kiddy porn sites overseas too. John from Idegon (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Hi. Thanks for explaining. The Reason article includes a link to the actual opinion. In the disposition at the very end it says: "The First Amendment and Eighth Amendment permanently prohibit the Government's request to forfeit the rights associated with the collective symbols. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the requested forfeiture of collective membership marks." link. Feel free to do what you wish with this information. If you think it merits inclusion in the article then great, if not, that's ok too. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have seen you reverted my edit. Would it be possible to explain the reason so I can correct the edit I made? Your comment seem to indicate that the sentence that was written in the article was not clear. The main point of this sentence is that a decentralised finance platform/market/protocol needs to be analysable for all participants to make decisions on transactions. However, this is very difficult to achieve at the moment with current protocols and designs.

Thank you.

best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jornfranke (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jornfranke: Hi, thanks for the message. Yes, I thought the sentence was unclear and did not add any useful information, especially for the article's lead. I wouldn't oppose its addition if you could make more clear the point you are trying to get across, granted that it is supported by reliable sources. Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you have any idea if any open carry permits have ever actually been issued in California or if it's like Illinois where eventhough state law says open carry is theoretically legal, in practice it actually isn't? Thegunkid (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegunkid:I don't know, sorry.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a moderator of the constitutional carry page, I recommend you consider clarifying the Texas description of what offenses prohibit a person from carrying a handgun. It is overly broad. It currently reads "and has not been convicted in the last five years of misdemeanor bodily assault causing injury, deadly conduct, terroristic threat, or disorderly conduct." Disorderly conduct is defined in Section 42.01 of the Texas Penal Code. Texas Penal Code 42.01 It describes 11 different types of conduct which constitute disorderly conduct. Only 2 of those types (conduct under 42.01(a)(7) and 42.01(a)(8)) are described in 46.02(a)(2)(B), as amended by HB 1927. HB 1927 Text. The NRA-PVF description, and the GOA description (which is cited in the same Wikipedia page) describe it as "disorderly conduct (display or discharge) of a firearm." An attempt was made to clarify the scope of the disorderly conduct prohibition by a user, but a moderator immediately reverted to the current version, which generally describes "disorderly conduct" as a prohibition without any clarification. LonghornBob (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LonghornBob: DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri amended its law to allow riders 26 and older to go without a helmet.^[1] 150.250.5.19 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to update it soon.Terrorist96 (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 15:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map on the page needs to be adjusted to reflect the tax rates in Oregon and New Mexico.Needforspeed888 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Three years and three months ago (May 2019), you contacted me to let me know that the Area Code Map of California was incorrect. At that time, as I explained, I did not have my computer, and could not fix it. Conditions remained that way until August, when I got my computer back and was able to do map editing. Over the years, I made several changes, including using CSS to style the colors. So, if any of the - I think it's 12 - California Area Code Maps are changed, all it takes to highlight the area code on each specific map is to change two lines at the top of each file, instead of having to wade through hundreds of lines of description, or use a graphics editor and manually recolor each one. Cuts down the work needed to change thing even further. So, since you had an interest, I thought I'd tell you. Yesterday, I checked the California map of area codes here against NAMPA's master maps of California, and the one here matches theirs; currently, all the area codes are correct.

Given the disruption that an area code split causes, my prediction is that this will be the last new map needed for California. All further changes will be adding new overlay area codes as needed.

I just wanted to say, again, thank you for your assistance; if people who notice errors don't either fix the error, or, contact me that I may do so, especially since you didn't know how and might have made things worse. Also, if you notice they are wrong again, you are encouraged to contact me. Since you were interested, I thought I'd let you know, i.e. give you a heads up. No reply is required for this message; it was a courtesy update since you allowed me to fix what was wrong. Thanks.

---

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could change the map to reflect the fact that Oregon and New Mexico have a rate above $2.00. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to teach you how to do it. Open it on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cigarette_Tax_Per_State.svg) then click on the map to open the file. Then save the .svg file to your computer, open the file with a note editing program, such as Notepad on Windows. Next, take a look at the code and it's pretty easy to deduce how the states have their colors. You see:

.st0{fill:#800080;}

.st1{fill:#0000FF;}

.st2{fill:#FF0000;}

Ignore the rest, as it's used just for DC. These 6 string alphanumerics represent hex color codes. You can search each and see the color they represent. Instead of defining each state by their color, whoever made this map created several styles that map to the colors, then define the state as the style. So now you need to find id="OR" and id="NM". The next line is class. Those two classes should be changed from st1 to st0. Save the .svg file, then upload it on the Commons page. Very easy! Let me know if you run into any issues. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Needforspeed888 Before you upload, you could test by opening the newly edited .svg file within your web browser to confirm the changes are correct. Then once ready, upload to Commons with the Upload a new version of this file link under File history. Now that you've learned this, you can apply the same knowledge to other maps you would like to see updated. Every map is different, but just look at the code and recognize the patterns and you'll understand how it works. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that lesson! I'll give that a try at my convenience. Needforspeed888 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terrorist96, if you have time, can you update this map please? Thanks, ―Darth Tomotron^{The Maw} 12:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have really fallen behind on that. Seems someone replaced my version with a new file (instead of just updating the prior one, which can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Amendment_Sanctuary_counties.svg ). If you are interested, I can teach you how to update it. I would recommend updating mine since it has all the history, and incorporate the changes made from the standalone one (and remember to update the article to point to my version). See the above thread about the cigarette taxes in the US map. The same general instructions apply, except you need to apply the colors directly to the counties. For example, find the county you are looking for next to id= then find the line that says style="fill:#XXXXXX;... and replace the Xs with the color needed. Use 008000 for green (county level), 0000ff for blue (state level), and 990099 for purple (both). Let me know if anything is confusing! Terrorist96 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted it out! Thank you, ―Darth Tomotron^{The Maw} 01:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are edit restrictions on Hunter Biden laptop controversy, including 1RR and consensus required. The edit notice that shows when editing the article states *You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) *Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. You have violated both of these restrictions. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. I did not kneejerk revert. I edited the contents to address the objection raised in the previous revert, thus it is a good faith attempt to comport with the objection, not a "revert". If you have any other reason to object to the content, please raise it. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A partial revert is still a revert, and reintroducing slightly modified material that has been challenged does not meet the bar of affirmative consensus. Please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a partial revert which explicitly addresses the reason for the previous revert, thus not a blanket revert or edit warring, which is the spirit behind 1RR. Using your interpretation, one would be limited to editing the article just 1 time per 24 hours regardless of the content of the edit or the reason for challenging its inclusion. I stand by my edit and do not believe it violates 1RR. Note that I was not the person who made the original edit. My first edit was just to use different sources to address the initial objection to using Fox/NYP. Once the new objection was raised (misrepresenting the source), I changed it to align with the source, thus I have in effect only made one edit to the content of the article. If you still believe I have violated 1RR, feel free to take whatever action you see fit. I believe I am editing in good faith. Thank you for your concern. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist, you are violating both 1RR and Consensus Required on that page. Please reset the article text to its state before the violations. I believe that means back to my removal of your Jim Jordan stuff. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I already addressed the points above. Additionally, the user who removed the first edit by objecting to the sourcing used (Soibangla) has implicitly endorsed my edit by modifying it but keeping it generally intact. Your only objection was the source was being misrepresented, which was addressed. Do you have a new objection? Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's UNDUE. The content does not have consensus and the page restriction requires you to go to talk. It won't harm your efforts to share your views and seek consensus and there's no rush about updating the article with the latest tidbit of NOTNEWS. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's undue, why does the section regarding the topic exist? If it's undue then you should support removing any mention of the letter by the intelligence officials. Since the section regarding the topic exists, as it's clearly notable, it's not undue to provide an update related to that topic when covered by reliable sources. The consensus for exclusion was sourcing (fixed) and misrepresentation of the sourcing (fixed). Thus you cannot argue there is consensus against inclusion of the subject matter. Consensus for every single edit is not required. Consensus is required for challenged material. Here the material was not challenged, merely the sourcing and phrasing, both of which have been addressed. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO it appears you’ve also violated the 1RR provision (1, 2). Mr Ernie (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]