User talk:Ryanaxp/Archive 2

Minor v. Happersett

Hi. Regarding this edit, are you really saying you believe the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was intended to guarantee citizenship only to male ex-slaves? (I.e., that female ex-slaves were not made citizens via the citizenship clause?) If this really is what you think, you'll need to find a reliable source discussing the 14th Amendment that agrees with you; otherwise, you can't add this claim to the article's text and expect others to go along with it. Please be careful from here on not to engage in an edit war over this issue; bring it up as a point for honest discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Minor v. Happersett), but don't add this controversial claim again to the article text without a clear consensus to do so, or else you are likely to find yourself blocked for edit-warring. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

By inserting the "(male)" parenthetical before the word "slaves," I am not intending to express any personal opinion on the matter at all. Rather, the paragraph in question is stating that at that historical time period, that was the position taken by the Missouri Supreme Court regarding the 14th Amendment. I have no agenda or ideology to promote here. My edit was intended simply to enhance the clarity of what the Missouri Supreme Court's historical opinion was. —Ryanaxp (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm sure we're both remembering that venerable tenet of Wikipedia, and assuming good faith of one another ☕. —Ryanaxp (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources showing this is what the Missouri Supreme Court said? A secondary source discussing the issue would be best, but a relevant cite to a Missouri Supreme Court ruling would be OK if nothing else is available. Even in this situation, however, it might end up being best for the Minor v. Happersett article to say that the Missouri Supreme Court had argued the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship only to male (not female) ex-slaves, rather than saying that this was the generally accepted view of the time (something that would likely be seen as an exceptional claim requiring exceptional evidence). I am BTW, not by any means suggesting you might be editing in bad faith; edit-warring is often conducted in perfectly good faith (with combatants sincerely believing they are in the right and others are wrong), but it's still not an accepted way to handle a content dispute. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madison Square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roadhouse. 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) 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moxifloxacin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chlamydia. 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) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ADC Map

The article ADC Map has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of the article is not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ȸ (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bender (Futurama), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Womanizer. 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) 10:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Check It

Hello Ryanaxp,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Check It for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Esquivalience ^t 23:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your nomination for speedy delete. Reasons set forth in talk page. --Ryanaxp (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)