dablink notification message (see the FAQ) |
Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | So glad you're back - and keeping them honest. I wish you good health all ways. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#999999">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 19:38, 12 May 2013
Welcome!
Hello, P3Y229, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Question
Were you the IP 91.42.29.53? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. The contributions made under the IP 91.42.29.53 were mine. Why do you ask? --P3Y229 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because I am a nosy bugger Thanks for letting me know. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. --P3Y229 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because I am a nosy bugger Thanks for letting me know. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try keeping to past tense when you contribute to history articles. lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Splitting articles
In future, when splitting pages (as you did with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions from Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), make sure to follow the right procedure in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure explains how to do this. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
NDAA
Hi there, I noticed you've been helpful on the NDAA 2012 page. I had only enough time to update it today with the most recent filing and appeal regarding Judge Forrest's block. I added it to the Intro, but don;t have the time to expand it in the article. Just in case you do, I thought I'd drop this note off to you. Otherwise, I will get to it when I can. Thanks for he help there! petrarchan47tc 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, There is another update, the White House requested a stay of Forrest's block, followed immediately by her denial. I left sources at my talk page, if you feel you have the time to get to it before me, please feel free! petrarchan47tc 23:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I will update the new article once current health issues on my end clear up (should be soon). petrarchan47tc 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Round four. New updates on my talk page, where I am leaving essentially a to-do list for myself (but feel free as usual). petrarchan47tc 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- It will still be another 1-2 weeks before I can get back to Wikipedia in any serious way. I apologize I can be of little help right now. I wanted you to see this interview with Plaintiff's Attorney who says all media got it wrong regarding the Sept 28 hearing, which is not to go over the merits of the case, but only the stay: video. How to work in this information that is only available by video is a question I have yet to answer. petrarchan47tc 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vid. I don't know how to incorporate the information from the video, but i was able to to incorporate the information from other sources. See Hedges v. Obama --> Second Circuit Proceedings --> 2012-09-17 Emergency stay order --> "The Lohier order basically a.) temporarily stayed Judge Forrest's 2012-09-12 ruling[1] b.) puts the whole matter on hold[2] and c.) means that the interim stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, 2012 when a three judge panel of the Second Circuit is expected to begin addressing the issue of a longer-term stay.[3][4] The appeal of the permanent injunction date is not yet set.[4]" --P3Y229 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perfect! petrarchan47tc 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vid. I don't know how to incorporate the information from the video, but i was able to to incorporate the information from other sources. See Hedges v. Obama --> Second Circuit Proceedings --> 2012-09-17 Emergency stay order --> "The Lohier order basically a.) temporarily stayed Judge Forrest's 2012-09-12 ruling[1] b.) puts the whole matter on hold[2] and c.) means that the interim stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, 2012 when a three judge panel of the Second Circuit is expected to begin addressing the issue of a longer-term stay.[3][4] The appeal of the permanent injunction date is not yet set.[4]" --P3Y229 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've left some updates at the talk page for Hedges vs Obama. petrarchan47tc 19:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest on Hedges case
Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law // Court order petrarchan47tc 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just dropping by to say thanks, you're a peach. petrarchan47tc 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Trial is tomorrow; update: Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution" petrarchan47tc 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Help desk talkback
Want to opt-out of talkback messages? Use Template:User notification preference.
Also, could you please make your signature clickable to make it easier to get to your user/talk page? –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- To edit your signature, follow these steps:
- Open your preferences (the link at the top – "My preferences").
- Find the section that says "Signature"
- In the text field that says "Signature", type in something like this (this is my signature adapted to your username):
[[User:P3Y229|P3Y229]] ([[User talk:P3Y229|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/P3Y229|contribs]])
- Make sure the checkbox that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" is checked
- Click the Save button at the bottom
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Also, see this Wikipedia guide for more advanced techniques for signatures.
Removal of comments
Hello, please don't remove resolved comments, like you did at the help desk; especially don't do it there because it's a repository of questions from Wikipedia users. Instead, mark resolved messages with {{resolved}}. Graham87 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violations on Hollingsworth v. Perry
Hi there. I'm Francophonie&Androphilie. I reverted 10 edits you recently made to Hollingsworth v. Perry, as several of them appeared to be copied from copyrighted material (specifically this LA Times article and this CNN piece, and possibly others). There was some material that did not appear to be in copyright violation, but there were also portions of your edits that struck me as lending undue weight to the pro-gay marriage movement, as they contained substantial amounts of text serving no purpose other than to reiterate the arguments for same-sex marriage. (I am, myself, gay, so you don't have to worry about me trying to skew things in an anti-gay light.) Obviously you should not repeat the copyright violations - you might want to read WP:COPYVIO - but don't let that stop you from editing constructively. Be bold: If you can rephrase some of the non-copyvio material from your edits, I'm sure it would be a welcome addition to the article. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
U.S. v. Windsor
Windsor is a case about the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act. If the appellate decision is upheld, section 3 of the act, which defines "marriage" for purposes of federal statute, will be invalid. That will not have an effect on whether anyone can get married. It will mean that same-sex marriages performed in a state where such marriages are legal will be recognized by the federal government for things like tax law, employment benefits, retirement benefits, retirement accounts (which are regulated by federal statute), etc. It is possible the question of foreign marriages for purposes of immigration (or the like) will be left open. If the prior decision is reversed, it will mean that the statute stands. If the court decides that it doesn't have jurisdiction, the lower court decision will stand. That would mean it would still apply in its geographical region. The court would then likely make the same decision for the 1st and 9th Circuit cases that are also pending. It would mean that the 3rd, 4th, or 8th Circuit would have to decide for DOMA, allowing the a party (the gay couple or the government) to oppose the decision, giving the Court jurisdiction. If it determines BLAG doesn't have standing, it is unclear what the result would be. In the end, the BBC (or any source using the word "judgement" instead of "judgment") should not be relied on. (Incidentally, it is weird that the BBC and Guardian use "judgement" when "judgment" is the correct spelling for a legal decision in England & Wales as well.) -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hollingsworth v. Perry
You might be interested in this discussion of some of the possible outcomes for Perry and Windsor in the Supreme Court. And this is just scratching the surface. HERE . Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
for your contributions on the excellent article Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under the Muslim Brotherhood Lockley (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gettysburg Address, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
So glad you're back - and keeping them honest. I wish you good health all ways. petrarchan47tc 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) |
- ^ Steigenwald, Lucy (18 September 2012). "Indefinite Detainment is Back On: Second Circuit Judge Stays Anti-NDAA Ruling Until Decision". reason.com. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
- ^ "NDAA fight - Executive takes on judiciary". Worchester Telegram & Gazette. 19 September 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
- ^ "Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA". Russia Today. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
- ^ a b "Stop the NDAA! - News section". www.stopndaa.org. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
A longer-term stay will be decided by a three judge court on or near September 28. The appeal of the permanent injunction date is not yet set.