This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 24 August 2012 (→RfC closure: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:07, 24 August 2012 by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (→RfC closure: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Φ
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed 19:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Protection of User:Fasttimes68
Hi SWATJester. I protected User:Fasttimes68 (from the request at WP:RPP) before I'd seen your decline comment. I'm happy for you to unprotect it; I'll leave it up to you. ItsZippy 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- We're apparently cross communicating, I'll respond at your page. ⇒SWATJester 18:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
RD Question on semi to full auto firearm conversion
Hi SWATJester! I noticed that you left some details about the legalities concerning converting firearms from semi-automatic to fullauto on User:Whoop whoop pull up's talk page. You probably didn't realise, but this all pertianed to a question posted on the science reference desk that we refused to answer based on policy. The purpose of us refusing to answer was kind of defeated when you answered his question anyway. Also, the answer you gave was essentially legal advice, which we are prohibited from giving on the reference desk. I'm not aware of any site wide policy on giving legal advice, so you're probably not in breach or anything, but again, it kind of defeats the purpose of us refusing to give it, if someone else then dispenses with it on the asker's talk page. Just thought I should let you know for future reference. Thanks a lot! 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did realize. If you'll go back and read what I said, I didn't answer his question of "How". Furthermore, it was not "essentially legal advice", it was common sense pointing him to a well known American law that he can research for himself. As an attorney, I'm pretty sure I know where the line is on giving someone legal advice. Instead of giving this kid such a hard time, it would have been easier to spend two seconds looking and pointing him to the article on that law, so he can see how illegal it is for himself. ⇒SWATJester 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed 09:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You're invited to Masterpiece Museum Edit-a-Thon!
| "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum | |
|---|---|
 The Smithsonian American Art Museum and Wikimedia DC present the "Masterpiece Museum" Edit-a-Thon. Drawing from their vast vaults of art, the caretakers of the Smithsonian American Art Museum have meticulously drawn forth canvas jewels to import into Wikimedia Commons and Misplaced Pages articles. The museum directors and staff are excited about this project, and would love to have experienced Wikimedians help in the effort! Kirill 18:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
WP:RFP
Hi Swatjester, thank you for helping to clear the backlog at RFP. Just a quick note regarding the templates - you may already be aware (and if so please ignore) but they allow a time frame to be entered, for example {{RFPP|s|24 hours}} produces " 
Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ", that might make it a little easier for you. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! ⇒SWATJester 18:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC closure
Your closure of Talk:Family Research Council#Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead is apparently improper. A "vote" of 25-16 is insufficient to indicate WP:CONSENSUS. If you weighed the arguments, and found the arguments for inclusion far superior to the arguments for exclusion, that would be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)