User talk:EmeryvilleEric

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to California Proposition 8 (2008) has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to which you refer are quite clearly explained in the edit summary, which included restoring the opening paragraph which reflects a consensus reached over the past couple of weeks, which is frequently changed by new and anonymous editors, in this case, by a new single-purpose editor flagrantly violating the three-revert rule. Your reversion clearly did not constitute a "minor edit." Mike Doughney (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, rollback got carried away. I have warned Gambit2392 for spamming the paragraph you deleted. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't spam the paragraph he deleted... I have no idea what you are talking about. Gambit2392 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be referring to this edit removing a paragraph you added - not my work, but EmeryvilleEric's - while perhaps a questionable source, it doesn't qualify as spam. I'm still wondering what all the fuss was about. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking he may have me confused with Forayhay who was spamming the revised introduction paragraph, but I agree with you, I'm unsure what all this fuss is about. The edit war needed to come to an end, but placing the blame on (a) uninvolved editors and (b) editors restoring the article to the agreed-upon version is not the appropriate response. About that paragraph I posted once, and did NOT reinsert after someone removed it, I think it's important to see the impact of the proposition on businesses as they seem to oppose granting more benefits and the other issues that would come up for them. Gambit2392 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your talking about the survey I removed. The source was questionable, an on-line vote not restricted to California likely voters, and is hardly authoritative or indicative of the business community. Information from the various state chambers of commerce would be more authoritative. If you want to get into business aspects, that's fine, but even with the passage of proposition 8, as before the In re Marriages ruling, businesses in California are required to extend the same benefits to married couples and registered domestic partners. For example, The board of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) voted overwhelming today to oppose Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, citing its potential impact on business and the economy. The members of the VICA board also noted that current labor laws regarding domestic partnerships increase administration costs and liability for organizations. Allowing the choice of marriage to be available to all couples has the potential to simplify the benefits process for employers. "Domestic partnership rules increase paperwork and create extra steps in the human resources process," said VICA President Stuart Waldman. "VICA has a history of working to make labor laws less onerous for employers, and our opposition to Prop. 8 is consistent with that stance." EmeryvilleEric (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that concerned about the survey as I am that I was somehow blamed for the edit war in which I did not participate at all. Gambit2392 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EmeryvilleEric, I have a suggested edit that meets your 3 criteria for improving the discussion in Domestic Partnerships. Peace. Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

How's about you creating your user page with some fun facts or your opinions? I keep thinking you've been banned every time I see your name in red. Mrbell (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, done. EmeryvilleEric (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underobserved article

Have a look here. Op-ed articles from the National Review as the primary source of information.--Bhuck (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]