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) reply

Were you the IP 91.42.29.53? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes. The contributions made under the IP 91.42.29.53 were mine. Why do you ask? --P3Y229 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Because I am a nosy bugger Thanks for letting me know. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No problem. --P3Y229 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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) reply

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) reply

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! petrarchan47 t c 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

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! petrarchan47 t c 23:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, I will update the new article once current health issues on my end clear up (should be soon). petrarchan47 t c 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Round four. New updates on my talk page, where I am leaving essentially a to-do list for myself (but feel free as usual). petrarchan47 t c 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

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. petrarchan47 t c 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

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! petrarchan47 t c 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I've left some updates at the talk page for Hedges vs Obama. petrarchan47 t c 19:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law // Court order petrarchan47 t c 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Just dropping by to say thanks, you're a peach. petrarchan47 t c 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Trial is tomorrow; update: Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution" petrarchan47 t c 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, P3Y229. You have new messages at the Help desk. –– Anonymouse321 ( talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

---

To edit your signature, follow these steps:

1. Open your preferences (the link at the top – "My preferences").
2. Find the section that says "Signature"
3. 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]])

1. Make sure the checkbox that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" is checked Y
2. 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.

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}}. Graham 87 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

	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) reply

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	So glad you're back - and keeping them honest. I wish you good health all ways. petrarchan47 t c 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Saying a passage is "noteworthy" is original research and based on opinion. WP:LONGQUOTE says "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to drop you a courtesy note that I'm working with another editor to try to bring the 13th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution up to GA status. Your edits there and elsewhere made me think this is a project you'd be interested in. If you're interested in dropping by, I'd be glad to have your input. Thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Death of Osama bin Laden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Press|date=Sept 27, 2011}}{{Dead link|date=May 2012}}</ref> The [Abbottabad Commission Report] of the Pakistani [[Abbottabad commission]] was released by [[Al Jazeera]] on July 8, 2013.<ref
• Bergen, Peter "'Zero Dark Thirty': Did torture really net bin Laden?"] CNN, December 11, 2012</ref> Later in 2003, [[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]], the alleged operational chief of al-Qaeda,

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Apologies for removing it without looking into it too closely. I had only seem some brief media coverage on it and assumed that the case was more along the lines of Salinas v. Texas (2013): one of the more important cases of the term, but probably not really all that monumental in the long run. I'll be happy to let it stand, though I think we might need to revisit and prune that article in a decade. It seems to be suffering from a bit of recency bias. NW ( Talk) 13:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I have reverted your addition of McDonald v. Chicago to the list of Privileges or Immunities Clause cases. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion is not the controlling opinion of the case. The controlling opinion is that of Justice Alito. Under Marks v. United States, the opinion that agrees with the holding on the narrowest grounds is treated as the majority opinion. Justice Alito's opinion is narrower than that of Justice Thomas, because Alito's opinion does not require any decisions to be overruled; Thomas's opinion would have overruled multiple decisions (e.g., Slaughter-House Cases). SMP0328. ( talk) 17:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey P3Y229, I hate to get on anybody's back about copyediting, but I notice that with most of the constitutional law additions you make, I have to come along behind you and fix some basic errors. If you'd be willing to start checking your contributions before uploading them, it'd be a big help. Thanks the contributions! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I notice you added some closely paraphrased material to the Fourth Amendment article for the second time. This was previously removed from the article because it is paraphrased closely and obviously from this source, in some cases using the source's exact wording: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/more-on-clapper/. You can see WP:PARAPHRASE for how you can rework and combine other texts to avoid this issue in the future.

On a related note, I'd also argue that your creation of this section unnecessarily unbalances the article; I don't see any reason to discuss a single blog post at such length compared to exceptions that have decades of famous case law and reams written about them. I think the paragraph of summary is sufficient to cover the subject, but I'll be glad to discuss on the talk page if you disagree. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was a bit hasty with the above comment. I see now that you removed some of the more obviously plagiarized material from your earlier draft, which I appreciate; this is not nearly as bad. I still think it's undue weight for this blog post, but I apologize for not double-checking before I posted. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)^ reply

Thanks for notyfing me. I will add a new section on the Fourth Amendment talk page. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Begging your pardon, but I think your addition to the article really belongs in the section above called "Contemporary sources and reaction". Also, the name of the London newspaper is The Times, so please take out "british" and italicize "The Times" (it's wrong in Smithsonian). Thanks. -- 71.163.153.146 ( talk) 02:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestion. Done with this edit. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

P3, I had to make some changes to your addition to make it fit. Some of it duplicated a line or two that was already in the article. Hope you don't mind too much. -- 71.163.153.146 ( talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

No. Quite the opposite. I appreciate your edits. Thank you very much! -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for visiting and editing the article about the Equal Protection Clause. However, you have continued to edit without participating at the article talk page. It is explained there that the article is written pretty much in a chronological format, and it seems that you are not editing in a way that preserves that chronological format. Please start using the article talk page. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for notfying me. I readded the deleted material Meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" in the "Gilded Age interpretation and the Plessy decision" section respectively as a footnote in that section in order to preserve the chronological style of the article. Hope that the way I did it is okay for you. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, I started a section on the article talk page, and I hope you can join in. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thought you might enjoy this AJ doc about the NSA leaks. petrarchan47 t c 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link, but the video was removed. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Here you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IjtsED5Iy8&sns=em . It's quite good journalism, worth a watch. If it comes down again, just enter the title of the video into youtube's search bar. petrarchan47 t c 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the new link. I found the broadcast very informative and exciting. As you correctly observed it's quite good journalism and worth a watch. I added the link at the external links section of global Global surveillance disclosure page. Thanks again for sharing. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

You're most welcome. And more: in this, Binney reveals the 'secret interpretation' of the Patriot Act that allows for mass surveillance. They interpret "terrorist" as "potential terrorist". And that means everyone. This part is around 35:00. Hopefully media will report on this revelation. Pending that, it is questionable whether this can be added to the encyclopedia. And, a couple more interviews with Binney are here. Enjoy, petrarchan47 t c 23:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It looks like you might have accidentally pasted, into United States v. Windsor, text you were still working on for a different article about a different court case, so I removed it. The sections removed were called "NSA phone data ruling" and "Warrant". I hope this is OK. If you still need a copy of the text, you can find it in the page history. -- Closeapple ( talk) 05:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

It's OK for me. I really didn't notice that I accidentally pasted material from my sandbox into United States v. Windsor until you made me aware of the fact. So thank you very much for your edit at the Windsor page.

Your addition to Law Enforcement Information Exchange has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. GabrielF ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Funny to see you at my talk page, as I've been meaning to drop by for the past few days: The Barack Obama administration, determined to thwart the attempt by other plaintiffs and myself to have the courts void a law that permits the military to arrest U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and indefinitely detain them, has filed a detailed brief with the Supreme Court asking the justices to refuse to accept our petition to hear our appeal. Hedges petrarchan47 t c 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link. I added it to the Hedges v. Obama article. Wishing yoi well! -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Same to you!! petrarchan47 t c 22:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, thanks for your edits to Korematsu v. United States. However, please try to use the American date format (i.e. month before day) in articles about US topics. I appreciate that the built-in reference toolbars can make this difficult. Graham 87 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hiya, take a look at the NDAA 2013, would you? I think I removed a lot of your work today, so wanted to check in with you about it. Trying to stop an edit war, but obviously feel free to revert. petrarchan47 t c 06:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I just ran into a few articles today that make me wonder whether our presentation is as straightforward as it should be. NDAA legalizes propaganda and (not RS)

"The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987"

The WP article looks as if the SM Act was added, rather than the opposite. But I have to admit, I haven't given this my full attention and may be misreading or misunderstanding the issue, which is why I keep coming to you. It's also, unsurprisingly, not being discussed in media which only adds to the difficulty for us. petrarchan47 t c 21:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I added your your sources and rewrote the article to state that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 amends certain passages of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. Wether this amendments negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987 or not is a matter of interpretation. This matter of interpretation can be clearly deduced by reading the first two paragraphs in the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 section in the NDAA 2013 article.

To qualify as a political haven precisely means that it is a safe place for the people using it; adding 'safe' (whether or not it features in source) is mere verbiage giving the reader more to absorb than necessary. There can be no such thing as an "unsafe haven"; sources do not have to be quoted verbatim, and what's more, it is equally common not to use the pleonasm 'safe', here is an example: [1]. Please do not restore the word 'safe'. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 19:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Restored safe because denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Afghanistan was/is an U.S. military goal for the War in Afghanistan. See this source in this edit. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC) reply

You don't get what I'm saying do you. "Safe" is superfluous, what is the difference between a 'haven' and a 'safe haven', and how do you define an 'unsafe' haven? -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 15:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I got what you were saying, but I restored the word because denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Afghanistan was/is an official U.S. military goal for the war in Afghanistan. There is no difference between a 'haven' and a 'safe haven', because the word safe haven is a pleonasm, but I know this pleonasm only as a set expression/set phrase and that's why it's common for me to use it. And because I'm not a native english speaker it is uncommon for me not to use the pleonasm 'safe'. For a definition of unsafe haven please see my answer at the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) talk page.

All right, the discussion is best continued at the talk page. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 18:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello again. Thanks for this good effort here [2]. I find myself laughing, not in a way that aims to ridicule anyone, but in that humorous respect because the whole reason I removed 'safe' was to make the passage shorter without removing vital information. What you have done is make it longer! Now if you revert to 'safe haven', it will reduce again. It doesn't matter though. It can stay as you're happy with it. If we edit-warred over that issue, we'd both end up blocked because it would be seen as WP:LAME! So, here's to the "safe basis"! -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 08:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I will let stand the words as they are. They are a bit long long, but clear, precise and not ambiguous. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, P3Y229. Three different editors have now removed the inappropriate/unnecessary content added to Iron Man 2. Per WP:BRD, please discontinue edit-warring and discuss your issues on the article talk page. Thanks.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for adding the full references to this page !! Also, you may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Afg War 2001-14 about the periods of the conflict. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. 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) 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I saw your bad-faith edits to American_Health_Care_Act_of_2017 and 2017_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act_replacement_proposals, so I removed them. Please don't reinsert that material, thanks. Ethanbas ^{( talk)} 22:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Pinging relevant editor User:DrFleischman. Ethanbas ^{( talk)} 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Maybe they weren't bad faith; regardless, I don't think statements along the line of "Obama one day noted blah blah blah" could be made appropriate for these articles. Ethanbas ^{( talk)} 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

There was no intention on my side to push a certain point of view. I merely wanted to add the statement by former President Obama because I thought it was an interesting one. Interesting in the sense what are the plus points of the law seven years after becoming it the law of land in the USA. I reworded the content to make the language more neutral at the Affordable Care Act page, the 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals page and American Health Care Act of 2017 page.

Whatever; I don't think I'm going to do anything further. Ethanbas ^{( talk)} 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It didn't seem to fit where it was in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so I reverted it again. While I think your contribution has a place in that article, I can't find where that would be.

I merely reworded it in American Health Care Act of 2017 and 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals. There seems to be more of a case for it there— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think it belongs anywhere in the article. We can't possibly include a sentence for every time Obama has said something in support of the ACA. Not to mention all of the other highly notable folks who have weighed in about the law. (I'm not watching this page. If we're going to continue this discussion I suggest we do so at Talk:PPACA.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Actually, there are three articles. My feeling is that it should be regarded as a one-time comment, even if he has said it many times.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your edit at American Health Care Act of 2017 and edits at 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals. I readded my contentious sentence and reworded ia as an introduction for the impact section, because that's the right place in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_55RITH7GQXfC2Kp&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs ( talk) 23:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Your addition to Abbott v. Perez has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Readded content and reworded it in order to comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from First Amendment to the United States Constitution into Reynolds v. United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

You observed correctly that I copied and moved text from First Amendment to the United States Constitution into Reynolds v. United States. Thank you for your attribution edit. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, I can see you're just trying to add info. However, you're only adding info that is already in the article. This duplication just creates work for other editors to remove it. A lot of it also seems to be close paraphrasing of the source. Please stop, it's getting disruptive. Kingsif ( talk) 19:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The deleted information pertaining to the barring of the press and public to court procedings isn't immediately visible. I try to reworde it. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think you see the issue, since you keep making such edits. As I can see from your talkpage, you have done the same before. Surely you can see it's disruptive, or at least understand that other editors recognize it as such. Kingsif ( talk) 20:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I can understand that some editors see my edit pattern as "disruptive". But it's not my intention to be "disruptive" nor to add empty, contextless comments. I simply try to add information which in my eyes are useful and embed them appropriately. An example for this are the Michael C. Davis quotes you deleted. I added these quotes in the context of "Beijing's full takeover of Hong Kong" and the comments made by Alvin Cheung in this context to show that the "high degree of autonomy" which Hong Kong enjoyed so far has been greatly reduced with China's Hong Kong national security law. My example for this point were the basic rights contained in Hong Kong's constitution which are overriden by China's superior security law according to Michael C. Davis. Thus it was naturally for me to quote Davis with the sentence "Now people take their rights subject to the interest of the state." -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Your addition to Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 16:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. It wasn't my intention to create a copyright problem. It was rather a genuine addition to the Eighth Amendment article done in good faith in order to expand the background of the the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. I'm sorry for the copyright problem and the work it caused for you.
You undid edits of mine with respect to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which I added on July 18, 2020. I would like to understand your decision. Can you please state therefore your specific reason(s) to undo my edits? Do I rightly assume that the problem lies with the inclusion of the Abraham Holmes quote?
In the process of undoing my edits you removed my 2020-07-18 21:43 edit which "Added information and source to clarify who Abraham Holmes was". I would like to readd the information from the edit to to clarify who Abraham Holmes was, but the edit is no accessible for me. I readded and reworded the content in order to comply with Wikipedia:Copyrights based on my memories. However I'm not sure if my edits are in compliance with the wikipedia copyright rules. Can you please therefore check the linked edit and the ones which follow.
No matter how old my account is or how many edits I made there is a willingness on my side to understand when the amount of used content starts to be illegal, to learn from it, to make content legal and improve my skills in the process. My interest is to avoid copyright problems (next time) so that there is no need to remove information. Can I therefore contact You with questions regarding specific edits and their compliance with the wikipedia copyright rules in order to prevent me being blocked from editing? Thanks in advance. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

It's okay to add short quotations but it's not okay to copy the surrounding prose. That's why I removed your edit. Wherever possible, don't use quotations at all, but instead write your own prose. The new version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I thank You for your short but sufficient answer. There is one thing which is still unclear. It is this: No matter how old my account is or how many edits I made there is a willingness on my side to understand when the amount of used content starts to be illegal, to learn from it, to make content legal and improve my skills in the process. My interest is to avoid copyright problems (next time) so that there is no need to remove information. Can I therefore contact You with questions regarding specific edits and their compliance with the wikipedia copyright rules in order to prevent me being blocked from editing? Thanks in advance. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I intentionally did not answer, because I have to say no. I don't have time to pre-check your edits for you, so I can't guarantee I would have time to answer. Please consider reading through the material at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. Thus you will have the skills and confidence to edit without feeling your work needs to be pre-vetted.— Diannaa ( talk) 21:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terror.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:25, 21 August 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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

A user recently discovered a copyright problem on the above article, content you added there back in 2012. I have cleaned the article, and I have done some revision deletion in your sandbox as well. Please let me know if you have any questions.— Diannaa ( talk) 22:44, 21 July 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Please proofread your contributions more closely. They've introduced many errors, typos, and grammatically unclear sentences. - Special-T ( talk) 16:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Also, be careful about editing the comments of others (as you've recently done to two of mine). Changing what the commenter said can be misleading. - Special-T ( talk) 21:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't change what you said here and here. I added wikilinks for reasons of transparency and traceability. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I realize that, but it's still problematic to change another editor's comments. - Special-T ( talk) 21:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drifter.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply