User talk:Terrorist96/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Sanctuary

https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190506/hopkinton-joins-burrillville-as-sanctuary-for-gun-rights 173.168.247.227 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Will update in the near future.Terrorist96 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

June 2019

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Washington Initiative 1639 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Terrorist96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #25631 was submitted on Jun 17, 2019 19:25:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Kentucky Constitutional Carry

Welp they just passed it too, the only reason it isn't signed yet is because the Governor is out of state for CPAC Thegunkid (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That's three in 2019 so far. Terrorist96 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note, if we can't have Vermont-style no license required Constitutional Carry everywhere, I personally wouldn't mind a Federal license on a "Shall Issue" basis (which would then shut down overly restrictive states like my former home, Maryland, or yours in sunny California.) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

West Virginia

I was mistaken, I misinterpreted a practice they have, in West Virginia, for new registrants they print the year onto the plate, but renewals are done with stickers. Thegunkid (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Area code 510.svg

Thank you for contacting me. What I could say to be funny is "I don't negotiate with terrorists" and refuse your request. The real problem is I am temporarily without a computer (I'm currently using a 10" Android tablet) and while Inkscape is an excellent desktop application for editing SVG files, I have so far found nothing usable to edit SVG files on Android. Plus, to "fix" California area code maps, as I wrote in the description, is to start with California's base area code map, fix that, then fix all 10 or 12 or however many separate area code maps there are for CA. It's about a 15-20 minute job, but without a desktop computer I'm unable to make the change at this time. If you would like to do this yourself, I can walk you through it. Let me know. You can e-mail me at Paul@paul-robinson.us, give me your phone number and a time when you have 1/2 hour or so of free time. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'm up for all of that. Hopefully you can update it whenever you are able to get on a desktop again. Terrorist96 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Rand Paul tenure edits

Please review my explanation of edits in the Talk section of this article before reverting once more. My edits are absolutely solid and I spent a hours reviewing both the John Stewart quote, the 2017 Tax Cuts article and its citations, and the same with the virtue signaling article. I could not find a scintilla of evidence that Paul opposed the tax cuts bill in any way. It passed by 51-49, two votes, with all Democrats, both Independents and Corker opposing. Paul said he always insisted on PAYGO, with reference to that bill. If you can find a scintilla of evidence that he did so in that case, feel free to share it and add that to Talk for Wikipedia editors to consider. Despite an extensive search I could not find any. I should note that I kept some of your edits that were supported by citations. Paul's statement was simply non-factual. Activist (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Basically we don't have robust 2nd Amendment rights

If you want to know whether a constitutional right is robustly protected, you have to ask yourself a few questions like, "Do I have a right to a jury trial, where the other side must prove facts beyond a reasonable doubt, before my rights can be taken away?" and "If I'm indigent, am I entitled to a court-appointed attorney in a case where my rights could get taken away?"

This is how we know that our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, for instance, don't have robust protection. A cop can go to a magistrate and say, "I have reason to believe he's guilty of xyz crime, but I need to search his house to be sure" and get a warrant to take your stuff and keep it for as long as the cops claim they still have an "ongoing investigation." That could go on forever (you've heard about how a lot of cold cases get filed away but are never actually closed), so you might never get your stuff back, even though you never had a right to a jury trial or to have a court-appointed attorney challenge the warrant. So your 4th Amendment rights are not safeguarded very well.

Same way with your 2nd Amendment rights. You could have an ex-girlfriend who claims, "He said some scary stuff to me" and the magistrate will say, "Okay, here's an order saying that he's kicked out of the apartment and that you get the right to continue living there at his expense, and that you get sole custody of the kids, and that his gun rights are revoked, and that if he contacts you (even if you contacted him first), he can get arrested." You don't get the right to have a jury hear the case, or to have a court-appointed attorney, because it's not like you're being accused of a crime or anything.

The issue of the court-appointed attorney is a big deal, because someone could bring a case against you from halfway across the country, and they would have the home court advantage in trying to get your rights taken away. It happened to David Letterman, but he had a team of lawyers to defend his interests; not everyone can afford that.

It's going to be the same way with these red flag laws; a cop will be able to say, "He seems dangerous; look at the stuff he's been posting to the Internet" and get a warrant to come into your house and take your guns; and you won't have the right to a court-appointed attorney to defend your interests in court, because after all, it's just a civil hearing, not a criminal trial.

This is not a country that takes constitutional rights seriously anymore (you'll notice, even the ACLU, now that it's been taken over by SJWs, only handles leftist issues, like LGBTQ discrimination issues, these days; they've stopped doing stuff like defending the First Amendment rights of neo-Nazis), and everyone pretty knows it, which is why you don't hear people saying, "Go ahead, it's a free country," like they used to back in the day. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

California area codes 510/341 and now 323/213

Hi there, this is Paul. Back on the 3rd/4th of July we discussed area code 341 overlay for 510 and at that time I wasn't able to do SVG file editing because I only had Android tablets at that time - there were no apps that would work for me to edit SVG files - and I did not then have my PC. I just got my family to bring my PC to the nursing home I now live at. It works fine and now I can get to work. I have just downloaded the main CA map and all subsidiary CA area codes. In addition to the 341 overlay, I need to change the 213 map, as the CAL Public Utilities Commission decided 323 was running out of prefixes while 213 had lots free, so 213 was converted from a separate area code to an overlay of 323. I'm going to start on this and depending on how fast I can work, I should have - Christ! I just counted them and didn't realize there were that many - all 27 maps fixed within a few days. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Terrorist96 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

More area codes in CA

Further corrections: NANPA's area code map of CA https://nationalnanpa.com/area_code_maps/display.html?ca shows lots of changes. Area code 279 overlays 916, 820 overlays 805, 858 overlays 619, 840 overlays 909 (and I've had to add "area code 840" as a redirect to 840/909), 628 overlays 415, I mentioned 213/323 above, and 341/510 we discussed. I'd say they've been busy. I can understand why nobody (else) has fixed any of the maps. It's why I switched from PNG images to SVG vector files, to make the maps easier to edit as I knew there would be future changes. As the saying goes, with this much work to do, "this is gonna suck." Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The maps have all been updated and the map template updated as of yesterday. I need to check the Area code footer template to be sure it has all California area codes. This should finish up everything for California, or, at least until the next area code change occurs. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	With a username like yours, I sorta expected vandalism. I was glad to find out this was not the case! I currently have List of presidents of the National Rifle Association going through WP:FLC if you want to leave a comment. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading a second translation, it's illegal to sell or make Assault Weapons in Puerto Rico but a private individual can import them from another state if they were purchased lawfully so it's like the California handgun roster. Thegunkid (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Shall Issue starting New Years 2020

They just overhauled all their gun laws and now you can carry on the possession license which is now shall issue. There's now Castile doctrine which applies to your car as well.

Secondly the translation of the Assault Weapons section of the law is weird, it seems to state making an Assault Weapon in PR is illegal, but it's legal to import them from other states.

Also universial CCW reciprocity. Thegunkid (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, will need to update a bunch of articles now.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Second Amendment sanctuary

Nice work on starting and expanding this article. FYI, I added the revision date to the map caption and the VA AG's response to the resolutions. I've also added a note about the state laws. They all appear to have been adopted before the Second Amendment "sanctuary" movement took off.--Mox La Push (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for your contributions too.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)