User talk:Gaijin42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
you are doing awesome work here, it looked easy when I started 4 weeks back, but this is real hard work, I get too involved and take a long time on each article, is this normal, I am beginning to appreciate a lot what the other editors are doing and how this whole site is maintained. great work. keep it up. Nlfestival (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And the like[edit]

I'm okay with removing it. The reason I put it in was to replace "similar devices".[1]. I hope that answers your question ("wtf"?).  :-). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Sellers[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Sellers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metal Gear (weapon)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metal Gear (weapon). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Craig Breslow[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Craig Breslow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xbox Fitness, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jillian Michaels and Tony Horton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vaporware[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vaporware. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cough medicine[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cough medicine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edinburgh[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Edinburgh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foro de São Paulo[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foro de São Paulo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Shogunate[edit]

So, you remove the citations when you pare down the section and then tag it with citation needed/OR? Really? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If the citations are backing the part that remains, the citations should have been in that content, not the part about the general history of guns in japan, but to the degree that the prior citations covered the remaining content, I apologize. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No problems. This page is more than a little difficult. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way the ref (re-added now) is a book you may find interesting. Giving up the Gun, Japan's reversion to the Sword, 1543–1879. by Perrin, Noel Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it does seem somewhat up my alley. I was a Japanese major in school and spent a decent amount of time there, and obviously I have an interest in guns and gun control as well. Crimes in Japan are very interesting. by any measure they have very low crime, but not as low I think as is reported. Many crimes get reclassified as non-crimes in order to keep their impossibly high (98%+?) closure rate. The homogenity of the society, and the social traditions (particularly those that let them construct virtual/mental privacy and ignore any cognitive dissonance) are not things that can easily be replicated in other societiesGaijin42 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right about that. One only needs to look at the UK to see the flip side. An island kingdom with a powerful central state but less cultural homogeneity tries to eliminate firearms and ends up with vastly more firearm violence. Violence that overturns centuries' long trends. Interesting. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

GC[edit]

Is it just me or has this editor (goethean) performed at least 3 reverts on Gun control in the last 24 hours? Not to mention the personal attacks he made today at User talk:Justanonymous. ROG5728 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I reported him for DE in general for deleting the content under discussion, but If you feel he is at 3rr as well, you may certainly suggest that in the ANI. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign supporters, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Gun control as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Given_that_Gaijin42_has_just_accused_a_contributor_of_Holocaust_denial.2C_I_formally_call_for_him_to_be_blocked_indefinitely.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

John First, wow, when did you become a user to be able to get such a simple username like that, grats!. Second - the other block was for reverting vandalism - Praetoreanfury was repeatedly applying the sps tag to a peer reviewed journal article, which has been published in multiple books. However, I should have payed more attention to 3rr in reverting his vandalism. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


It's plain English that it was NOT saying that somebody was denying the holocost. It was saying that they denied that gun control happened as a part of it: "and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust." Folks need to read what they actually said instead of ginned up mis-characterizaitons of what they said. They should be unblocked immediately and an apology given for the error. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


EatsShootsAndLeaves The topic under discussion on the article is in fact the holocaust, so bringing up the holocaust was not some attempt at godwining the conversation, it was directly on point to the content dispute that is ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So, as I suggested, make a valid, WP:GAB-compliant unblock request that clarifies things. Easy-peasy. ES&L 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gaijin42 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

* (GAB #1) There appears to be a number of admins and other editors who feel that the block is unjustified, and as the topic at hand is in fact "the holocaust and what did or did not happen during it" bringing up comments directly linked to what editors are saying did or did not happen seems entirely appropriate, which would make this an invalid block. and was not intended as a personal attack. * (GAB #2) However, to the degree that my comment can be misconstrued, and may be interpreted as WP:UNCIVIL I apologize, and will focus on keeping things more civil going forward Gaijin42 (talk) 8:02 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Lifted by blocking admin; closing request. Yunshui  15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Errrr, part 1 is unhelpful - see WP:NOTTHEM. Part 2 has to be more of taking person responsibility for the possible misinterpretations ES&L 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully, I fail to see how WP:NOTTHEM applies. I am not accusing anyone else of bad behavior to excuse my action - I am just stating that my comment was in fact on point to the content dispute at hand, and therefore should not be considered a personal attack. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In an article about such a clearly and highly inflammatory subject, how or why the term "holocaust" is even used is beyond me. The discussion is about gun control during the Nazi regime of 1930s and 40s Germany, plain and simple. Yes, the holocaust is a horrific and significant part of that era, but its "one part". Everyone involved needs to take a deep breath and stop injecting such vitriol into what should and CAN be a civil discussion. IMO, Gaijin's only transgression was not censoring himself enough so that others could not twist his comments so that this type of action was taken. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused as to your comment about why the holocaust was brought up. Surely Kristallnacht is generally considered part of the holocaust? The most documented/commented on parts of the nazi gun confiscation are directly in the sub-context of kristallnacht. the content dispute in the article is about did the nazi's use gun control against the jews (and to what degree did that contribute to the holocaust). Bringing up the holocaust is entirely appropriate in this context is it not? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's a problem: the language of "twist", which supposes that in this case the blocking admin, for instance, deliberately made something mean something it didn't mean. That's assuming bad faith, and in such discussions it's always unhelpful, and can't be proven anyway (same with some comments on ANI about "silencing the opposition"). Really, such comments are personal attacks, and you (Scalthotrod) are not helping Gaijin's cause. Gaijin, Part 1 is indeed somewhat unhelpful, though I have a different read on it then does User:EatsShootsAndLeaves; what I think is problematic is the word "invalid". As difficult as it may be for you to see, since you obviously thought differently over the interpretation of your comment, you simply have to accept that it was interpreted very differently by a number of editors including two administrators. That's unfortunate, perhaps, and possibly erroneous, but given their interpretation ("you accused someone of holocaust denial") their reasons for the block were valid.

    A better request leaves that out and acknowledges that their interpretation was not what you intended, and that you will make damn sure that such misreadings will not occur again. Now, I also saw the older comment, the one you made here, and I find it acceptable that someone looks at the recent comment in that light and finds something of a pattern. It is important that you not continue such a pattern and that you will say so. I'm on your side in the unblock request process, but that doesn't mean I'm going to criticize the ones who block you and who support the block, and I'm not going to demonize anyone on either side--well, not you, or North, and other editors of good faith. Ha, editors who are wrong! but of good faith. Your supporters would do well to also refrain from such counterattacks: there is no conspiracy. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

DrmiesI have tweaked my request to be more clear on that point. interestingly I was composing a note to you which got (edit conflict) with your message above. in the aNi, you discussed 1938 and said that was prior to the holocaust. I do not believe that is the (universally) accepted definition. The holocaust often taken to be more than just the "final solution" our own article on the topic goes significantly into nuremberg laws and other repressions happening in the '33-'35 range. In this sense, I was using Holocaust to mean "the whole of negative actions taken by the nazi's against the jews" and not referring specifically to gassing/cremation/etc. (Would this be helpful to clarify in my unblock?) [2] [3] [4]Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a more narrow definition, I suppose, focusing on the Endlosung and perhaps starting in 1941, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much, I suppose. I don't think this needs to be qualified. Now, I don't agree with your statement below, "editors have plainly stated that not only was the gun control unimportant, it was in fact not gun control"--that's precisely what's at stake there, and you're not ascribing this properly, IMO: your opponents, as far as I can see, argue that it was less important than our current article suggests, not that it was unimportant or not gun control. But that's another matter. Good luck, again--you and I have been so active in this discussion that it would be inappropriate for me to unblock you (it might be construed as lending myself moral leverage over you, for instance, and I want to keep the air clear between us), but the next admin might be willing to accept it. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed I understand and agree that it would be inappropriate for you to unban me. Regarding miscontruing my opponents, I believe you are incorrect. You are lucky not to be involved in this clusterfuck as long as I have been, and therefore not aware of the rapidly moving goalposts in the arguments, but I think you will find the first post in this section quite explicit. I can hunt up other similar comments if needed Talk:Gun_control/Archive_3#Definition_of_gun_control_in_lead_paragraph_absurdly_broad or (unable to link to this since its in an archived section, so just quoting) "When people think of gun control, they think of a broad (non-discriminatory) governmental policy of limiting private gun ownership" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Barlow Per my comment just above to DrMies, I was perhaps using a wider definition of Holocaust than others, including the nuremberg laws, and other repressions, and not just the final solution - in particular kristallnacht which I would be very surprised to think was not generally considered an element of the holocaust. . (Our own article as well as many reliable sources do the same). One may certainly debate about how important gun confiscation was from jews, and what counterfactual alternate history would have looked like - but it is an established fact that Nazis did pass laws which confiscated guns from Jews. editors have plainly stated that not only was the gun control unimportant, it was in fact not gun control. Attempts to redefine gun control to not include laws that took guns away from jews is orwellian. While certainly this does not rise to the level of saying something like "6 million jews were not exterminated" it is attempting to ignore the existence of basic facts from history for political or other pov reasons. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

collect in addition the peace/war problem would exclude other elements of the "political" version of things that would be useful. The US jim crow gun control laws (already in the article in the US history section) could also go well into the political section, which would help keep the "history" section a bit more pure and less argumentative. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am encouraged by your comment that you will "focus on keeping things more civil going forward". I would like to hear your explanation of your "if the shoe fits" comment before I unblock you, however. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

gamaliel This discussion is quite heated and stressful, and I sniped. such sniping was inappropriate. However I was not referring to specifico, nor to any recent event. In the prior (months ago) discussion, editors were indeed disputing the basic established facts (rather than disputing their importance, or their implications for modern debate etc). (see the link&quote I mentioned to drmies above) At that time said that some of my opponents "arguments reeked of holocaust denial" (using a wider interpretation of holocaust than it appears others many use). specifico brought up a comment made many months ago, my response was in that same time context. to a degree, this is a guilty plea - the "shoe fits" comment was indeed intended to mean that people were attempting to deny basic facts about history (though not intended to mean they denied the final solution etc) . the comment was inflammatory and inappropriate both then, and my shoe fitting comment as well (but I think to a lesser degree), although I think it is being intentionally exaggerated to mean the more specific "final solution denial" which I certainly did not intend. I am very frustrated by those that I feel are attempting to wikilawyer out of including any information or arguments contrary to their POV - however that is not an excuse, and I must always remain civil and in control of my tongue (fingers I suppose). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe everyone is entitled to lose their temper once in a while. I'm sure you can understand that when you say Holocaust denial, people will assume that you mean exactly what our article says it means, and they will not see this arbitrary distinction you are trying to make between that and "final solution denial". Regardless, the analogy is offensive and there are other, milder ways to say that people are denying what you see as historical fact without resorting to this emotionally and racially charged comparison. If you're willing to refrain from further inappropriate references to holocaust denial, I'm willing to unblock you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Gamaliel I certainly will not use the term "holocaust denial" again, or say anything that could imply doubting of the final solution. Additionally, I will endevour to be more civil in this and all discussion (I even promise to be more civil off-wiki!) However in the interest of complete honesty and openness, When my opponent's arguments warrant it, I do reserve the right to continue to argue that they are attempting the ignore/minimize/misconstrue the existence of established historical facts regarding the implementation of gun control targeted against jews. I hope this is sufficient, but if you think I am triangulating, I also understand - but I do not wish to mislead you just to be free of a short term block. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. If you think people are ignoring historical facts, you are welcome to say that. The issue to me is not what you are arguing, it's how you conduct yourself during that argument. By the time you read this, you should be unblocked. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Purple Barnstar Hires.png The Purple Barnstar
For being set upon for merely working on gun articles. I'm sorry you had to go through this, and hope that you don't let them get to you. GregJackP Boomer! 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar seconded. I've read the ANI, and I think your block was totally unjustified. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you for your tireless contributions in the middle of the storm - as well.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Milton Berle[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the Berle talk page and the dispute resolution site. I posted on the DRN because this was one of the options provided by WP guidelines as a means to resolve a controversy between more than two editors. RFC was suggested as another option. I'm not a particularly experienced wikipedian, especially when it comes to disputes. I try to avoid them whenever I can. Why would an RFC be better than DRN? As far as I can tell, based on the comments on the talk page, it seems that there's already a consensus among interested parties that the material in question should remain part of the article. I'm still very much in "learner" mode, so I'd appreciate any advice on how to proceed. Should I rescind the DRN and open an RFC. To be honest, I've never done either one before. Thanks. --Jburlinson (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've edited two of your posts[edit]

Greetings and salutations. I wanted to let you know I made this edit to two of your posts(here and here) at Talk:Gun control. Please feel free to revert for any reason you see fit. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Asma al-Assad[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Asma al-Assad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for your tireless contributions[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless, thoughtful, and level-minded contributions to the Wiki in the face of continuing adversity. Justanonymous (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Monster[edit]

Hey Gaijin, you or North may have seen it, but another IP has added an unsourced trademarks lawsuit to the Monster page here (presumably the same person from before). I was hoping you would take a look since it would be inappropriate for me to revert on account of my COI.

BTW - Merry Christmas! Hopefully I am not interrupting x-mas festivities. CorporateM (Talk) 02:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC) (COI with Monster)

Other editors took care of it and eventually blocked the IP for 48 hours or so. It looks like the article is watched well-enough I won't have to worry too much about it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Page number[edit]

Hi Gaijin42. Regarding the book about Canadian gun control, would you please indicate the page number where it talks about Nazis? That would be more convenient for other editors than merely a link to the front cover. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI on Andy[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Gaijin42![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Gaijin42:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Article Rescue Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar search rescue 02.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your work on saving Gun Control in the Third Reich (book) from deletion after a BOLD redirect, I present you with this barnstar! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, thank you for your very timely heavy lifting today. This little sprout should be fine with some TLC. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom case[edit]

I don't think this will get accepted to be honest, but I'd say you almost certainly need to add User:ROG5728 as a party as they have been involved in most of the disputes over the page including the latest trip to WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cottrol[edit]

Perhaps this quote might be useful for you:[5]

Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians? These questions bear repeating. The answers are by no means clear, but it is unconscionable they are not being asked.

---Robert J. Cottrol is professor of law and history and the Harold Paul Green Research Professor at the George Washington University. His most recent book is From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England.

I will be pleasantly surprised if you have not given Arbcom a huge opportunity to misattribute behavioral problems to ("coincidentally") yourself and all people who have supported the content that you support (plus a few other people thrown in to create an image of impartiality). My suggestion would be to withdraw the Arbcom request, but of course it's totally up to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

They really don't provide any help on content issues. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
They don't deal with content issues ostensibly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Note that you and I worded it slightly differently. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egalitarianism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Egalitarianism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Egypt[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Egypt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun laws in Illinois[edit]

Greetings, Gaijin42. I have reverted several recent edits to the lead section of the Gun laws in Illinois article, including your substantial shortening of the lead, and started a discussion about this, at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#Lead section. Feel free to comment there. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 00:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Many many thanks[edit]

Your quick action helped to shut down the unconscionable edits that were coming from the IP that located to Oregon. There are not enough words to praise your vigilance. Many thanks for this and all your good work here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom[edit]

Might I ask which one? I have not been notified of any arbcom case? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines I am involved in another case, not you (AFAIK). I was asking for clarification for my own purposes, not regarding you. AH! I just figured out the confusion. The "DS" I said was not "Darkness Shines" but "Discretionary Sanctions" Gaijin42 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
smile Had I known of discretionary sanctions when I registered, perhaps I would have been bright enough to choose a different username. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Poet categories.[edit]

Hi. I added the category because Category:American women poets is not a sub-category of Category: American poets, it's a distinguished category. That means the articles that are in the smaller category are supposed to also be represented in the broader category, so they're not ghettoized. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 27. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

curses, foiled again![edit]

You beat me to Burrows Cave. As I have a lot of sources and am getting more, I'll be expanding the article over the next few weeks. Thanks for starting it but now I've lost all the glory! Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sccy CPX-1[edit]

Hey Gaijin, I just defluffed and de- --what is the opposite of fluff? this article (see the history). I'm doubting whether this gun is notable or not, and your opinion is appreciated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies Its marginal to not. Certainly not a big name. I did manage to find a few minor sources for it. Because it is the company's "flagship" product, and that company does not have an article, I could see justifying it as there is no where to merge to and it has some minimal level of coverage (mostly routine reviews from sites that review every gun), but if you think it doesn't pass GNG or PRODUCT I wont disagree.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Ha, I just deleted a company article as spam... I'll have a look. Thanks Gaijin, Drmies (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Help, please[edit]

Could you review your 18 NOV 2013 comment on the 3D printed firearms talk page and see if I've left it in the right place. There appears to have been two separate discussions, and I'm trying to sort them out. If I screwed up, you have my permission to move my edits and comments. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather I have done so (prior to this notice! ;) ) However, I would like to thank you for reaching out to ask form help and double check your actions. I apologize if my comment on the article talk comes across overly harsh. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. If you look at this version, you can easily see where the confusion came in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hrm, Im actually not confused by that? There is an unsectioned orphan discussion, and then a merge section I created, with a !vote from andy in it. I don't see how you thought those were related to the orphan discussion. But in any case, its handled.
Well, you have been a WP editor longer than I, and you've edited on that particular page longer than I. Would you mind striking some of the testier parts of your comments on the talk page re: this? Just so no-one comes along and gets the wrong impression? Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pistol[edit]

Hello,

I have reverted your revert on the Gun politics in the European Union. You are right that the etymology in general is not important, however when a single member state has a pistol as most common firearm (while others have rifles), the fact that the member state's language gave origin to the very word pistol surely plays role.

Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for fostering neutrality on articles related to gun control. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Doctree submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Gaijin42 as Editor of the Week for fostering neutrality in articles where most editors' points of view are widely separated. Gaijin often contributes to articles on gun control and related topics. He somehow manages to skillfully draft text acceptable to both pro-gun and anti-gun POVs. Through many contentious discussions on article and user talk pages, he remained neutral and civil, working to keep the focus of discussions on encyclopedic content. He is steward of many articles. Gaijin contributes to articles over a wide range of other topics. He created over 30 articles; his total edits top 10k.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Flag of Greece.svg
Gaijin42
Flag of Greece
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 26, 2014
Fosters neutrality. Skillfully drafts text acceptable to both sides of contentious issues. Remains neutral and civil, working to keep the focus of discussions on encyclopedic content. A steward of many articles, has created over 30 articles.
Recognized for
Civility
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 13:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your example of what a Wikipedia editor should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Duck Dynasty[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Duck Dynasty. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you[edit]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Buster7 Go Phightins Doctree The ANI above is taking aim at you, so you probably should have been notified. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already notified Buster7 and Doctree. If Go Phightins! is involved too, I'll notify him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The award has never been anything more than what it is...ie...the result of ONE editors nomination and some minimal vetting by a second, about 6 weeks in the Q, and finally distribution. No politics, no drama. Calling the Eddy useless and unworthy is counter-acted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient response. I'm glad I collected them. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

Just to let you know you have been mentioned at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Editor_of_the_Week_award. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hint[edit]

This might not be the best time to be doing you-know-what at you-know-where.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
However the ArbCom case may turn out, and however wrong you are (ha!), I appreciate your dedication to the project and your friendliness. Various members of Congress could learn a thing or two from you. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That makes 2 Doctors in your corner. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A request, please[edit]

Would you please remove your remark from the 3O request I posted? The pending ArbCom is about behavioral disputes on another page, but this is a content dispute. I made a specific, good faith request to him to remove the material until the related ArbCom is resolved. He declined. I made a very time-consuming, bold edit to remove most of the material but leave the most to-the-point, avcessible Nazi gun law argument, plus two sources that respond to that argument. I hoped he would find that an acceptable compromise. He reverted that. These edits and the related discussion were between Anything and me.

Will you please remove your comment? Lightbreather (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Other people have commented. Yo umay not just declare that the only interested people are you and anything. 3O is the wrong venue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ayaka komatsu at busan[edit]

hello gaijin - I noticed you replied to stefan4 about the photo of ayaka komatsu at busan festival that is to be removed from the Ayaka Komatsu article - I think the page is better with an image and wish Stefan , since he understands what is needed for an image to survive, would do something about sorting out permission. I honestly don't understand what i need to do , if it could be explained without all that - 'it is released under CC-44-GYp or whatever and that allows it on Asian wiki, bit not on this page', - why doesn't he try and do something positive and pursue the matter - he knows the laws, but doesn't try and set the image straight within the law it seems to me. do you get what I am saying? in my mind the user Ramen Lover was at the event and took the photo and wants it to be used across Wikipedia - is that almost certainly wrong ? you wrote something that implied that was a possible scenario. anyway, sorry to bother you, but it has been bothering me - Stefan tags the image, and then goes silent as he watches it deleted without actually doing anything to try and get the accreditation , that he understands, - it annoys me Sayerslle (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 15:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Added to ArbCom case[edit]

As you may know, I got added to the ArbCom case today. I'm not sure how they expect me to participate given that the evidence phase is closed, and they showed no interest in adding Lightbreather. It's pretty much inevitable that I will be topic-banned from politics articles at the very least, given that ArbCom indirectly controls Wikipedia content and does not particularly like the content that I have added. It's grossly unfortunate that the project is structured this way, but that's the way it is, apparently.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I regard the adding of parties who are not afforded the common decency of being allowed to then furnish evidence to be improper on the part of any committee in any society in the entire world. Clearly ArbCom does not fall into that category. Collect (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if they did allow evidence, I have no idea whether I should defend my actions at the article I stopped editing last year (gun control), or instead the U.S. article that I've edited this year, or both. The request was made to add me because of the U.S. article, and I would prefer to focus any evidence I am allowed to provide on that U.S. article, but maybe they would just then ban me for activities last year at gun control. Who knows?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to follow up here, they gave me an opportunity to provide some evidence as an "Involved Party" which I will do within twelve hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from George Zimmerman without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! STATic message me! 03:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WADR[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WADR. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you from Armbrust[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I thereby award you with The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar for closing discussions listed on the Requests for closures subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I endorse Armbrust's barnstar. Thank you for your prolific, careful work at WP:ANRFC! I was impressed by your careful close at Template talk:Main#Multiple articles and one main article (permanent link) where you noted that "this should not be considered a 'hard' precedent" because "this RFC did not have wide participation".

    You wrote on Armbrust's talk page here (my bolding):

    Would you mind taking a quick review of the closes I did yesterday to see if I am closing them appropriately? May of them could can/(arguably should be) "no consensus" as the !votes are very close, but I felt like that does the participants a disservice to leave the conflict unresolved, so I tried to see which arguments were more founded in policy. I want to make sure im not going down a path that is going to cause trouble for the board, and also not cause too much trouble for myself :)

    Basing your close primarily on policy and on arguments is precisely what closers should be doing. I reviewed several of your closes, and found them to be well-thought out. But if the numbers and policy arguments are well-balanced, "no consensus" is the appropriate close. Here is experienced closer I JethroBT (talk · contribs)'s perspective on "no consensus" closes and resolving disputes at User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 9#Roundup closure (my highlighting):

    I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it.

    I think you handled the contesting of your closes at #Closure of RFC section of Firewall page of Talk:Firewall (physics)#RfC: What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper? (permanent link) and here of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles. (permanent link) very well. You did not take the disagreement personally. You patiently and politely explained why you closed as you did. After reviewing the discussions, I fully endorse both of those closes as accurately representing the consensus.

    You said on Armbrust's talk page that you didn't want to cause too much trouble for the board or yourself. I think you are doing excellent work, but if an editor ever fiercely disagrees with one of your closes and wants to cause trouble for you (such as repeatedly undoing your close), I recommend that you initiate a closure review at WP:AN yourself. This will bring more eyes on the situation so that uninvolved editors can endorse or disagree with your close. Thank you again for your hard work at WP:ANRFC! Best, Cunard (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Closure of RFC section of Firewall page[edit]

I don't mean to sound argumentative but your definition for what constitutes a primary vs secondary source is not consistent with Wikipedia policy since WP:SECONDARY clearly states it depends on context. The case we were arguing about is clearly spelled out in WP:ALLPRIMARY

A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material).

If Wikipedia policy has changed in this regard the documents should reflect this so there is not confusion in the future, but I think the rest of the world takes the position I do - that if a researcher is discussing their own ideas it is primary but when they discuss others in an introduction it changes context and is secondary. Since I myself write journal articles all the time I am very familiar with this concept - some others not involved in research may not be. With regard to your comments about "priority", that just means of the articles listed in that paper his was chronologically first. That's what priority means and nothing more should be inferred from that. It's also not original research since this is something that comes from that paper's reference list. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue to come to me. When I was saying primary, I was referring to the overall source. In terms of AllPrimary, I think this is a grey area - they were not merely describing prior work, they were comparing their work to the prior work, and that comparison is novel. Beyond that I think WP:WEIGHT is the stronger issue. If the paper spent a page, or even a paragraph talking about the guy and prior work, then there would be a stronger argument for inclusion. a footnote, as one of 6, is not enough imo. However, if you want to contest my closure, you may do so following the below instructions.

[..] request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't work that way. Any discussion of another persons work is secondary material and Wikipedia clearly states this. Relating it to their own is simply analysis and that is also allowed in secondary material according to WP:SECONDARY. If you don't believe me read the documents. Weight comes from the fact it is a high quality source (peer reviewed journal). QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There were several peer reviewed journals, and several purely secondary sources. The only mention of the guy is the footnote.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"

In any case, my personal opinion is irrelevant. I was not making a supervote, I was analyzing the consensus of the discussion. Your arguments do not change that consensus, even if you are right as to the underlying argument. If you disagree with my closure, I have given you the proper venue for a second opinion,. Be aware that if you go to that additional venue your argument will need to be that my analysis of the consensus is wrong, or that arguments must be discounted for violating policy, not that your argument in the dispute is correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing at stake here and do not plan to pursue it further. With regard to the above paragraph, my contribution was intended to be a compromise between various extremes in view. I felt some allowances should be made on a topic that was only 1 year old. You are not going to find a lot of high quality sources so the one we have is significant. It has taken a lot more of my time than I intended and I would rather spend my time pursuing my own research. I could have defended at least 5-10 papers in real journals with all the effort spent here and it is just not worth my time. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julia Lipnitskaia[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julia Lipnitskaia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "3D Printing 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cārvāka[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cārvāka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning 3D Printing 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Philosophy of education[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Philosophy of education. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

I have closed your deletion proposal, because the proper method is a full AFD. I have created an AFD for the page that you may comment on here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_M._Phillips Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for doing so. I am not familiar enough with the whole process of initiating a deletion. So, I was just going by what I had read on that Talk Page. Thanks for starting this the correct way. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holy anointing oil[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Holy anointing oil. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Debora LMP296[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Debora LMP296. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Unreliable sources[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Unreliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Oscar bait (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lincoln (film), Boys Don't Cry, Chicago (film), Crash (film), The Pianist, Amistad, Nine (film), Precious, Coming Home, Les Miserables (film), Nell, Frost/Nixon, The Wolf of Wall Street and Captain Phillips

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Latin Europe[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Latin Europe. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Culturescapes[edit]

{{help me}} Hi Gaijin42 thanks for your message. Why can the article Culturescapes not be retained? I did look at the Your first article page and I tried my best to make a good start to the article. I still find it all a bit confusing, but I wasn't trying to do anything wrong or against guidelines. Please be aware the article is not finished yet, but I ran out of time. I spent quite long on it and would really appreciate it if it was not deleted. Can you tell me what's wrong with the article so I can fix it? --Morgemonster (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goldie Taylor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • the first cable news pundit to do so, being an early vocal proponent of a deeper investigation.{[cn}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Oscar bait[edit]

Well, thank you for the article Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crowned Crane[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Crowned Crane. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy[edit]

I've declined the speedy on Supportersvereniging Ajax. There is still a question of notability, but the group has received coverage from RTV N-H and other outlets for their events. This puts them just beyond speedy criteria by about a hair. AfD would probably be the best place for this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Condorelli[edit]

Hi.The article Condorelli is about the most important turrón producer in Italy, this is the reason why it should be mentioned in this encyclopaedia.--Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fort Indiantown Gap Police[edit]

I redirected it instead of deleting it. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Georg "Åby" Ericsson[edit]

Hello ! And sorry for have caused a problem. I created the first article about former Swedish national manager - but with an incorrect spelling. Now another user have given me a link of how to rename articles. As of now You want a speedy deletion of the uncorrect name. Correct spelling is "Georg "Åby" Ericsson". Couldn't we solve this problem, that I do admit to have caused (not knowing of how to rename an article), by removing the George "Åby" Ericsson article instead. I have alerted the two other contributers of what I have done. I will not do it again, bus as of right now (wise after the event), it seems better to remove the article with uncorrect name. I'm sorry for have caused this problem. Boeing720 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy[edit]

Dear sir: Thank you for your attention to the article on the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. That said, I would like to contest the "speedy deletion" tag that you apparently put there. The Shorenstein Center is *not* commercial, and having been in Wikipedia for many years under its former name, the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, it very much deserves to be in Wikipedia. The only difference between the two articles is (a) the slight name change; to put it in place I had to create a new article and do a reference from the old article, which you'll see. And (b) an additional paragraph on the reasons for the name change. The organization is the same.

Please note that the Shorenstein Center is *not* a commercial enterprise. It is a nonprofit, educational institution that has been part of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government since 1986. It is the foremost center for discussions of the media, press and politics in the United States, and hosts some of the most important figures in politics, academia, and journalism in the world. Numerous current and past political figures have been fellows at the center, and it is the very essence of significant.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. I would appreciate resolving this matter as soon as possible.


2014-02-24: Dear sir/madam: Despite my comment above, the article above, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. has been deleted. Moreover, the text for the old version, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, is gone too. This is completely inappropriate given the Shorenstein Center's long history and stature in the education community -- it is a nonprofit, educational institution that is part of Harvard University, for heaven's sake. The page should be restored as soon as possible.

(By the way, if there was a better way for me to correct the name of the center, let me know. Thank you.)

Super-team[edit]

A quote is indented and cited . . . that is not copyright infringment . . . please put the gun back in the holster and READ a copy of APA format. You need to understand how to write before judging others.174.99.59.109 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have requested that your access to controls be revoked . . . you do not know what you are doing. Stmullin (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Super-team[edit]

Hello Gaijin42. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Super-team, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can't find any of the prose in this article in the source listed, nor in other sources based on googling. ping me with an example if I'm incorrect. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Smartse the bullet list section is pulled directly from the first source, formatting and all. The PDF appears to be not searchable/indexable which is why the google fails (even trying to do a search within the file, while the PDF is open doesn't work!) However, that issue may be moot, as A10 is probably an easier route to go with for CSD - a much higher quality article exists already at High-performance teams, and the sources references are actually referring to that term. Also, just so you are aware, there is an ANI post regarding this user/article that you may wish to comment on regarding the action you already took (decline) or if you go ahead with the A10 Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep I can see that, but it's cited and therefore not a problem. G12 requires the copyvio to be blatant and for everything to be copied. Otherwise use {{copyvio}}. (I'm halfway through posting at ANI). SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
What about the A10? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That's for repostings with minor rephrasings whereas this is substantially different. I agree that they are essentially the same topic though, so once I've had a chance to look for sources myself, I would probably suggest a merge and redirect at the AFD. SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

suggest bot test[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
Comparison of Android devices
Captain Cold
Saturn I
Rocketdyne F-1
Rocket
Rocket engine
Cleanup
V-2 rocket facilities of World War II
Wasserfall
Solar water disinfection
Expand
Timeline of rocket and missile technology
Technical University of Berlin
Sheriffs in the United States
Unencyclopaedic
Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
College athletics in the United States
2012 Benghazi attack
Wikify
M. Night Shyamalan
Selective heat sintering
Stereolithography
Orphan
Salem College Center for Women Writers
Eugene F. Lally
Gaicht Pass
Merge
Spaceflight
Ares V-Y
Atlas-Agena
Stub
Walter Jacobi
Adolf Thiel
Ferdinand Pettrich
Born into Struggle
Wasla (diacritic)
Gene Porter Bridwell

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Light breather appears to not counting correctly.[edit]

FYI. It was dead even by my count. I admire your energy and thank you for your diligence. I'm mostly silent but I watch. I want to see what arbcom decides. Btw, it's way easier editing the global warming pages than this mess.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nippon Kaigi[edit]

LOL how can you decide in a swift moment that the article in unimportant??--Catflap08 (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

User:Starship.paint has opened a complaint at WP:AN/I concerning the issue about WP:CONSENSUS and the "petition" issue in Justin Bieber. Collect (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coat of arms of the Netherlands[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coat of arms of the Netherlands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Palestinians allegedly assassinated by the Mossad[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Palestinians allegedly assassinated by the Mossad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as it relates to USDA Hardiness Zones[edit]

As a follow-up to this (and thank you very much for the links provided; it indeed is WP:OR, not to mention false except for the polar regions and perhaps tropics, to assume daily sun hours are centred around the middle date of the month), would you consider it either synthesis or OR to take the mean of the annual extreme minima and use this information to place a station, and thereby a city, into a hardiness zone, if only the former is provided by a single source? Example will be given if you need it. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant of Melkor It would be synth to say that "City X is in zone Y (because its temps are A-B)". However, you can say "City X has temps A-B (source). Temps that fall in the range of A1-B1 are in Zone Y(source2)." However, both bits will need to be sourced (IE, calculating the means yourself falls back into WP:OR) . Some might say this is an acceptable level of synth in the first version - that may be, I personally wouldn't fight it, but technically it is still synth. But Im somewhat surprised you can't find a reliable source just directly stating the zone of a particular city. At least in the US, there are maps and tables for almost every place and which zone they are in. If there is a map that shows the zones, assuming the city is not near an edge (ie, completely unambiguous that its really in the zone on the map) I would say the map is sufficient sourcing to say which zone a city was in. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I cannot find maps. The one most recently released by USDA (will pull it out later if you ask) based on the 1976–2005 period under-rates some cities, especially Washington, D.C., which it places under Zone 7B or even 7A even downtown, when the 1976–2005 mean annual minimum per NWS is rounded to 9F (9.2F to be precise), which is borderline 7B/8A. The point is increasing urbanisation, and, in some places, a lack of strong cold spells such as was rather commonplace from the 1960's, '70's, and '80's...well you know what that implies.
And I thought USDA Hardiness Zones were universally accepted as being defined in strict increments of 5F. It's not something controversial such as Koeppen. I may place a note saying: "For City A, the mean annual extreme minimum temp is xxF, placing it in this zone per USDA", or something similar. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I think you are getting into worse territory actually. If there are published sources putting city X into zone Y, and you are arguing its wrong due to changing conditions, that is squrely in the WP:OR bucket (even if you are 100% correct). However, you can do as above and say something like "Using 2005 data USDA puts city X into zone Y. In 2012, the mean temperature in X ranged from A-B. Temp range A-B is in zone Z." Basically, wikipedia cannot be publishing "facts" which are not available elsewhere. We reflect the reliable sources, not create them. If the reliable sourecs are out of date... then thats still what we reflect. See WP:FLAT for a description of this. (Note, Flat is talking about WP:FRINGE science. I'm not accusing you of proposing something fringe. You may be 100% correct. But the policies that let us prevent fringe science also prevent your updating of the reliable sources on your own research. To be clear, I AM NOT lumping you in with this, but see this ongoing dispute with a guy trying to show that global warming is not happening on Venus by a similar chain of facts/calculations. Maybe hes right. Maybe hes wrong. But since its not published by reliable sources, we can't WP:VERIFY it either way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Greenhouse_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Venus Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

I found your edit summary on this edit[7] a little harsh, to put it kindly. I'd already explained why I thought the material deserved to stay in the article, so calling it "stupid" - and deleting it again, without discussion seemed severe. You wrote, "Discuss previous law and national discussions in their proper context." So, out of curiosity, in your opinion, where is the proper place to discuss a president's proposals after a national outcry for action over the massacre of 20 children? Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather Your previous summary was that it should be kept because of previous laws and debate. My point was if you want to discuss previous laws (the AWB), do so (we already do). If you want to discuss the debate, do so (and again, we already do). But using laws that WEREN'T PASSED as a proxy for that article content, is indeed stupid. We are approaching 250 years of history involving gun politics here. Covering things that didn't happen is not a viable model. WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT also put in against this. Certainly the massacre and its aftermath should be discussed, but what value is there in the details of laws that didn't happen? How many words do we give to the entire 20th century? The entire 19th century? the entire 18th century? How many words are we reasonably going to give to the 21st century, that we are only 14 years into. How many of those words are going to be about the details of non-law? There were calls for increased gun control. They did not pass. The deleted content had no analysis or commentary on the provisions (and certainly to put them in would be WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOLONG for an overview article that is already 150k If Obama's proposals need more detail, make a spinoff article -, or put it in the Newtown article (Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Gun_control already has significant coverage). But an overview of the entire 250 years of politics cannot give significant space to detail the things that didn't happen. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that we really can't understand each other? This reminds me very much of discussions we (not just you and I, but numerous other editors) had about what Heller meant. With your argument being, essentially, that since the Court ruled as it did, no criticism was due any weight in the article. As if laws and rulings never change, or that people quit arguing (politicking) about them once they pass or are ruled on. This is an article about POLITICS, right? It isn't Gun laws in the U.S., right?
As for Obama's proposals - the U.S. President's proposals - being undue... because they didn't proceed to become law seems just as obtuse. Once again, the fact that they didn't pass doesn't mean people quit talking about them or that they're politically moot. WP:UNDUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The President's proposals are his viewpoints. Viewpoints are politics. They don't stop becoming viewpoints or politics because they don't become law.
Since you seem concerned about the size of the Gun politics article, tell me, aside from deleting that short list of proposals, what is your opinion of some of the dense sections like Logical pitfalls and Relationship between criminal violence and gun ownership? Or the repeated Heller (two or three places) details and arguments? Or the space we give to Plato and Aristotle and Britain's Glorious Revolution? Or to the Arms Trade Treaty, which isn't about domestic gun policies? If this is only an overview of gun politics in the U.S., why the hell are we giving these sort-of related things so much real estate? Hell, even the Paul Revere story is a tangent. Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Proportional to the entire history of gun politics in the US, how important is proposed law that didn't pass? Places where Heller is repeated should be reduced or removed, but Heller/McDonald resolves several long running debates, so if each debate is discussed, each needs a conclusion. The ATT section is probably a bit long, but theoretically it could still be ratified, but I would not oppose trimming it down - it has its own article. The entire colonial period has 3 paragraphs so no, I don't think thats undue, particularly for something as iconic and important as the minutemen in the militia history. Newtown is certainly an important 21st century event and should be covered in the article. But do you really think the bullet point list of a law that didn't get close to passing is the most important thing to say about it? Theres a ton of content in the shooting article (way more than we could ever put in the GPUS article) is that really the most important bits you think we should pull over? If you think the proposals need coverage, I think they would be appropriate in the shooting article, where each item can be covered as to what it meant, who supported/opposed, how close it got, arguments for/against etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You didn't answer my questions about the looong "Logical pitfalls" and "Relationship between criminal violence and gun ownership" subsections, but let's set that aside for now. There are at least a few things we agree on. Can we pick one, come to an agreement, and propose it at the article talk page, together? Here's a suggestion: "The Courts and the law section." How about moving the parts that have to do with the Court decisions into the appropriate history sections. Ditto for the "Federal laws." Then the end of the article could be about "State constitutions."? Lightbreather (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather Sorry, I missed the questions about pitfalls and relationships. I think those questions are essentially the core of the debate since at least the 60s, and there is not a firm conclusion to be made, just a bunch of conflicting studies and opinions - by necessity its going to be somewhat longer to handle that complexity and conflict,
BUT.
Logical pitfalls has a good amount of redundancy/overlap with the relationship question. Its really restating the same questions (or raising issues about the various studies in the relationships) - the two sections can probably be merged, but I expect there are unique and valuable bits in both sections. (One solution would be to take each question/pitfall from the pitfalls section, and turn it into a sub-subsection. Then copy the bits from the relationship section that address that question into that subsection)
The combined section itself is probably worthy of a WP:SPLIT into its own article, where the detail could be expounded upon at length, and just a WP:SUMMARY left in this article, but crafting a summary (and merge of sections) acceptable to all parties may be a tedious process.
Regarding your more immediate suggestion, I'm not sure. I see value in talking about the courts as a discreet topic, since they are really the place where the debates get resolved (or at least ruled on, the debaters disagree with the decision) - but when some of these debates have been going on for decades and centuries, shoving it all together seems wrong. Redundancy is a problem though. Are there any particular sentences you feel are particularly redundant?
As I type this, I think I actually lean the opposite way from you on this - keep the detail of the cases in a discreet section, where we can provide detail and context. In the various other sections that refer to the cases, give a VERY BRIEF (one sentence?) statement saying that the debate was resolved by case X with result Y, and point them down to the case section (or case articles) The mot important court cases obviously have their own very detailed articles, but as there is interaction across cases and various "penumbras and emanations" as SCOTUS likes to say, this is a good place to discuss those (along with Firearm case law in the United States)
A change I thought about yesterday is that the high level ordering of the article is probably wrong (by wrong I mean probably not providing the information a reader is looking for earlier in the article before they get bored). Personally, I think the top level sections should be reordered (maybe Political arguments, Public opinions, Courts and the law, History) with perhaps some of the latter 20th and 21st century stuff pulled out of "History" into "Current Debate" as the first section or something. I did not pursue this yesterday, because getting consensus on any large change is always a PITA Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
But the details are in the articles themselves on the laws and Court rulings. You said this is an overview article. Plus, what discussion we have in the article re: said laws and rulings should be put into historical context, that is the context of the ongoing debate. For those who want to dive into the minutia of Miller or Heller, they go to those articles. But I'm not talking about burying the cases. For instance, I was about to suggest this, but I'm adding how the cases would fit:
Yes the bulk of details should go into the case articles, but as those have had a massive impact on gun politics in the us, they do need WP:SUMMARY coverage here. BTW, the first semi-auto rifle was in 1885 (Semi-automatic_firearm#Early_history_.281885.E2.80.931945.29), not the world wars, although they were not standard issue military equipment until 1917 (Fusil_Automatique_Modele_1917) or 1936 (M1 Garand)
Well, I count on you enthusiasts for those kinds of details. (BTW: A photo caption in the Semi-automatic rifle article says: The M1 Garand, designed by John Garand in 1936 and initially produced for United States military, was the first semi-automatic rifle to be generally issued to the infantry of any nation.) But I have to tell you, the level of detail you guys get into sometimes on gun history and mechanics on the POLITICS pages is annoying as hell to non-enthusiasts like me, and probably at least distracting to non-enthusiast readers.
But I don't want to get off on a tangent. Do we feel that we understand each other here? Rather than have a separate federal laws and federal court rulings section, work them into the chronology, with the details that are appropriate - and if you really want something to stand out (like Heller) give it a subsection header, a "Main" link, and as I just said, the details appropriate to the article. Then, when it comes up after, we don't start explaining it all over again and linking to it over and over again. I think this would go a looong way toward improving the article. Also, if you and I come up with some kind of plan, if - heaven forbid - ArbCom does ban you, I'd at least have some idea of a compromise that you and I had reached. I really am trying to work with you guys, but being on the unpopular (among the majority of the currently active editors) side of the issue makes it awful hard. Lightbreather (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


The subsection titles could name the eras, or the years, or both. And we put non-contemporary, gun politics related things into historical context (but super light on the history that's not directly about gun politics). Think about it? Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, how do you put a box around something? Like if I wanted to put that whole outline into a box? Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure there is a good template that does exactly what you would want here. collapse or archive would be workable, but aren't quite right. there are some draft templates too, but Im not sure they are right either (I added it below tho just for fun). Probably wouldn't be too hard to create a new draftbox template that looks like the archive box, but says its for drafts instead.
Just a heads-up: You forgot to sign the above. Also, I've been playing in the work area you created below, is that OK?
Also also, I just found out that I'm released from jury duty - happy - but I'm going to babysit my 3-year-old granddaughter for the next 24 hours because her 6-month-old sister goes in for a GI scope tomorrow. It's a little dangerous, so if you're the praying type... But the main thing is, how that goes may affect my work here the next few days. Lightbreather (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just found out that grandbaby's scope went OK, though it looks like she has some kind of protein allergy that's gonna complicate her life for awhile. She has to get on some special formula, plus I don't know what else. But no surgeries needed or anything like that. Phew.
Now I am going to work below a bit, and if I don't hear from you soon, I'll ping you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather Im glad everything is good with the kid. My baby is going to be one this weekend, but at about 3 months they told us he had a heart murmur, but it turned out to be benign. Babies have an incredible amount of power over our worries don't they. Regarding the below, Feel free to keep drafting here, but I want you to have realistic expectations. I don't have objections to the overall concept of the organizational changes, but there are quibbles and objections I have here and there with how things are summarized/rewritten - but of much greater concern in this effort is that even if you and I were on 100% the same page, doing a wholesale rewrite of the entire article is unlikely to go over smoothly with anyone else (on both sides of the debate). I would keep things at the 10k foot view so as not to waste your time, and get feedback on the concept from others. Then start making the changes individually and slowly (over several days) in the article to let others contribute and collaborate. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Work area[edit]

Early history[edit]

Colonial America and the Revolution[edit]

In the years leading up to the American Revolutionary War, British colonists became increasingly agitated about taxation without representation. In October 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress effectively purged Loyalist officers from its militia and directed its towns to designate portions of their militia as "minutemen."[1] In February 1775, the British Parliament declared that Massachusetts was in a state of rebellion. On April 19, British troops tried to confiscate the Massachusetts militia's cannon at Concord.[2] On April 20, before news of the Battles of Lexington and Concord had reached Virginia, Royal Governor Lord Dunmore sent British marines to take militia powder stores from the Williamsburg magazine. The city council demanded that the powder be returned, but it was not. The Gunpowder Incident was ended without conflict when Patrick Henry, accompanied by about 150 militiamen, agreed to compensation of £330 for the seized powder.[3]

Jacksonian era (Antebellum? 1789-1849)[edit]

Already have some material.

(Civil War and ?) Reconstruction (through about 1877?)[edit]

Already have some material.

Gilded Age and Progressive Era (1870s - 1920s)[edit]

This is when the NRA was created. Also, rapidly changing technology, including firearms (and ammo?)

World Wars[edit]

First semi-auto rifle? Already have some material, for instance re: The National Firearms Act and what brought it about.

Miller[edit]

Post-War history[edit]

Already have some material, for instance re: assassinations and the Gun Control Act mass shootings and the AWB

21st Century[edit]

In October 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report on the effectiveness of gun violence prevention strategies that concluded "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws."[4]:14 A similar survey of firearms research by the National Academy of Sciences arrived at nearly identical conclusions in 2004.[5] In September of that year, the Assault Weapons Ban expired due to a sunset provision. Efforts by gun control advocates to renew the ban failed, as did attempts to replace it after it became defunct.

The NRA opposed bans on handguns in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, while supporting the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (also known as the School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act), which strengthened requirements for background checks for firearm purchases.[6] The GOA took issue with a portion of the bill, which they termed the "Veterans' Disarmament Act."[7]

Besides the GOA, other national gun rights groups continue to take a stronger stance than the NRA. Including groups such as The Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the Pink Pistols. New groups have also arisen, such as the Students for Concealed Carry, which grew largely out of safety-issues resulting from the creation of 'Gun-free' zones that were legislatively mandated amidst a response to widely publicized school shootings.

In 2001, in United States v. Emerson, the Fifth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to recognize an individual's right to own guns. In 2007, in Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit became the first federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.[8]

District of Columbia v. Heller[edit]

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld by a 5-4 vote the Parker decision striking down the D.C. gun law. Heller clarified that Americans have an individual right to possess firearms, irrespective of membership in a militia, "for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."[9] However, in delivering the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that, like other rights, the right to bear arms is limited. He wrote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[10][11]

The dissenting justices said that the majority had broken established precedent on the Second Amendment,[12] and took the position that the Amendment refers to an individual right, but in the context of militia service.[13][14][15][16]

McDonald[edit]

Public opinion[edit]

Political arguments[edit]

Rights-based arguments[edit]

Fundamental right[edit]

The primary author of the United States Bill of Rights, James Madison, considered the listed rights — including a right to keep and bear arms — to be "fundamental" maxims. In 1788, he wrote: “The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”[17][18]

The view that gun ownership is a fundamental right was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Court stated: "By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."[19] The Court observed that the English Bill of Rights of 1689 had listed a right to arms as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.

When the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), it looked not so much to the founding, but to the year 1868 when the amendment was ratified, and observed that most states had provisions in their state constitutions explicitly protecting this right. The Court concluded: "It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."[20][21]

Second Amendment rights[edit]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[22] Disagreement about the Second Amendment is a touchstone of modern political debate about guns in America.

Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, in the absence of a clear court ruling, there was a debate surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment included an individual right.[23] In Heller, the Court concluded that there was indeed such a right, but not an unlimited one.[23] Although the decision was not unanimous, all justices endorsed an individual right viewpoint, but differed on the scope of that right.[13][14]

Many gun rights advocates say the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. They argue that the phrase "the people" in that amendment applies to all individuals rather than an organized collective, and they state that the phrase "the people" means the same thing in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.[24]:55–87[25][26] They also cite the fact that the Second Amendment resides in the Bill of Rights and argue that the Bill of Rights, by its very nature, defines individual rights of the citizen.[27][28] As part of the Heller holding, the majority endorsed the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual, but not unlimited, right to own guns. Robert Spitzer and Gregory P. Magarian argue that this final decision by the Supreme Court was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution.[29][30][31]

After the Heller decision there was an increased amount of attention on whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the states. In 2010 in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's provisions do apply to the states (via the Fourteenth Amendment).

People who interpret the Second Amendment as protecting broad gun rights point out that at the time of the Second Amendment's adoption in the late 18th century, the word "militia" meant "every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45".[32] Even today, the United States Code states that the militia is all male citizens and resident aliens at least 17 up to 45 with or without military service experience, including additionally those under 64 having former military service experience, as well as including female citizens who are members of the National Guard.[33]

Self-defense[edit]

The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (b. 1723), who heavily influenced the drafters of the U.S. Constitution,[34] called self-defense "the primary law of nature" which (he said) man-made law cannot take away.[35] Following Blackstone, the American jurist St. George Tucker (b. 1752) wrote that "the right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible."[36] Beginning in the late twentieth-century, legal scholars have expressed renewed interest in Tucker's increasingly influential perspective.[36]

In both Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) the Supreme Court deemed that the right of self-defense is at least partly protected by the United States Constitution. The Court left details of that protection to be worked out in future court cases.[37]

In the United States, the two major opposing interest groups regarding this issue are the Brady Campaign and the National Rifle Association.[38] They have clashed, for example, regarding stand-your-ground laws which give individuals a legal right to use guns for defending themselves without any duty to retreat from a dangerous situation.[39] After the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Heller, the Brady Campaign indicated that it would seek reasonable gun laws “without infringing on the right of law-abiding persons to possess guns for self-defense.”[40]

Carrying pepper spray can provide a less lethal option, and police are generally equipped with it, but they also carry a gun as a last resort in the event that pepper spray or other less lethal weapons will not suffice.[41] A firearms license is required by some states to buy a gun but not to buy pepper spray or mace for self-defense, except in Massachusetts where the license is required to buy any of them.[42]

Security against tyranny[edit]

Public policy theory[edit]

Gun violence debate[edit]
Logical pitfalls[edit]
Relationship between criminal violence and gun ownership[edit]
Public Health Law Research[edit]
  1. ^ "General History Questions: Why were the colonial soldiers called minute men?". nps.gov. National Park Service. March 21, 2014. Retrieved April 9, 2014. 
  2. ^ "History & Culture". nps.gov. National Park Service. March 21, 2014. Retrieved April 9, 2014. 
  3. ^ Russell, David Lee. The American Revolution in the Southern Colonies. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 52–53. ISBN 0786407832. OCLC 248087936. Retrieved April 9, 2014. 
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference CDC2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Wellford, Charles F; Pepper, John V; Petrie, Carol V, eds. (2013) [Print ed. 2005]. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Electronic ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. p. 97. ISBN 0-309-54640-0. 
  6. ^ Williamson, Elizabeth; Schulte, Brigid (December 20, 2007). "Congress Passes Bill to Stop Mentally Ill From Getting Guns". Washington Post (Washington, D.C.). "Congress yesterday approved legislation that would help states more quickly and accurately identify potential firearms buyers with mental health problems that disqualify them from gun ownership under federal law.... [The bill] drew overwhelming bipartisan support, and the backing of both the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association." 
  7. ^ "Vets worry bill blocks gun purchases". Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, Nevada: Stephens Media). November 5, 2007. Retrieved March 11, 2013. 
  8. ^ Rose, Veronica (September 28, 2007). "OLR Research Report: Parker v. District of Columbia". cga.ct.gov. Retrieved April 2, 2014. 
  9. ^ Rose, Veronica (October 17, 2008). "OLR Research Report: Summary of DC v. Heller". cga.ct.gov. Retrieved April 2, 2014. 
  10. ^ Scalia, Antonin (June 26, 2008). District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2013. 
  11. ^ Cooper, Matthew (January 19, 2013). "Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control: His ruling in a key Supreme Court case leans on original intent and will let Obama push his proposals.". National Journal (National Journal Group). Retrieved January 6, 2014. 
  12. ^ Linda Greenhouse (2008-06-27). "Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-27. 
  13. ^ a b See "District of Columbia v. Heller: The Individual Right to Bear Arms" (PDF) (comment), Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, pp. 141-142 (2008): "Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, but disagreeing as to the scope of that right….Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined Justice Stevens’s opinion."
  14. ^ a b Bhagwat, A. (2010). The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 16–17. ISBN 9780195377781. "Justice Stevens begins his opinion by conceding Justice Scalia's point that the Second Amendment right is an 'individual' one, in the sense that '[s]urely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.' He concludes, however, that all of the historical context, and all of the evidence surrounding the drafting of the Second Amendment, supports the view that the Second Amendment protects only a right to keep and bear arms in the context of militia service." 
  15. ^ Bennett, R.; Solum, L. (2011). Constitutional originalism : A Debate. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780801447938. "In both dissents, the clear implication is that if the purpose of the Second Amendment is militia—related, it follows that the amendment does not create a legal rule that protects an individual right to possess and carry fire arms outside the context of service in a state militia." 
  16. ^ Schultz, D. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 201. ISBN 9781438126777. "Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the debate over the Second Amendment was not whether it protected an individual or collective right but, instead, over the scope of the right to bear arms." 
  17. ^ Williams, Tony. America's Beginnings: The Dramatic Events that Shaped a Nation's Character, p. 174 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2010).
  18. ^ Roth, Timothy. Morality, Political Economy and American Constitutionalism, p. 16 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007).
  19. ^ Utter, Glenn. Culture Wars in America: A Documentary and Reference Guide, p. 145 (ABC-CLIO, Nov 12, 2009).
  20. ^ Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms
  21. ^ Carper, Dnald and McKinsey, John. Understanding the Law, p. 85 (Cengage Learning 2011).
  22. ^ US Constitution at Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute
  23. ^ a b "Legal Information Institute (LII): Second Amendment". law.cornell.edu. Cornell University Law School. January 26, 2014. Retrieved January 27, 2014. 
  24. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. (1987). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-945999-28-3. 
  25. ^ Story, Joseph, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States(1986) Regnery Gateway, Chicago, Illinois, p.319-320, ISBN 0-89526-796-9
  26. ^ Hardy, David T. The origins and Development of the Second Amendment(1986), Blacksmith Corp., Chino Valley, Arizona, pp.64-93, ISBN 0-941540-13-8
  27. ^ "The Second Amendment — Reaching a Consensus as an Individual Right" by Miguel A. Faria
  28. ^ "Guns and Violence" by Miguel A. Faria
  29. ^ Spitzer, Robert J. (October 2008). "Review of The Founders' Second Amendment by Stephen P. Holbrook". Gvpt.umd.edu/. Law & Politics Book Review. University of Maryland. Retrieved January 8, 2014. "As the Supreme Court made clear this past summer, judges can change the law, although there is less than consensus, even among conservatives, that Justice Antonin Scalia succeeded in making the case for the majority in HELLER. Federal Judge Richard Posner (2008) opined recently that Scalia’s opinion, though lengthy, 'is not evidence of disinterested historical inquiry. It is evidence of the ability of well-staffed courts to produce snow jobs.'" 
  30. ^ Clemente, Matt (2009). "The Framers’ Aims: Heller, History, and the Second Amendment" (PDF). Discoveries. John S. Knight Institute for Writing in the Disciplines (Cornell University). Spring 2011 (10): 63–76. Retrieved January 8, 2014. "For although Americans believe in an individual right to bear arms, public opinion polls have consistently shown that they favor commonsense gun restrictions as well. Thus, if the lower courts begin to get too bold and begin striking down popular gun control laws, Heller, like Lochner [v. New York], will be seen as a mistake." 
  31. ^ Magarian, Gregory P. (2012). "Speaking Truth to Firepower: How the First Amendment Destabilizes the Second" (PDF). Texas Law Review (University of Texas) 91 (49): 49–99. Retrieved January 8, 2014. "The Constitution can confer rights on individuals, as the First Amendment undeniably does, but—as First Amendment theorists frequently contend—for collectivist rather than individualist reasons.... While this Article does not contest the core holdings of Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment confers an individual right against the federal and state governments, [I challenge] those decisions’ primary justification for the Second Amendment: protection of individual self-defense." 
  32. ^ Malcolm, Joyce. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition" in Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment, p. 256 (Robert J. Cottrol ed., Taylor & Francis, 1994).
  33. ^ U.S. Code on General Military Law, Part I, Chapter 13.
  34. ^ Bartholomees, J. The U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues: National security policy and strategy, p. 267 (Strategic Studies Institute, 2010).
  35. ^ Dizard, Jan et al. Guns in America: A Reader, p. 177 (NYU Press, 1999).
  36. ^ a b Vile, John. Great American Judges: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1, p. 766 (ABC-CLIO, 2003).
  37. ^ Epstein, Lee and Walk, Thomas. Constitutional Law: Rights, Liberties and Justice, 8th Edition, p. 396 (SAGE 2012).
  38. ^ Wilson, Harry. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, pp. 20-21 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
  39. ^ Willing, Richard (March 21, 2006). "States allow deadly self-defense". USA Today. Retrieved 2011-12-08. 
  40. ^ "Unintended Consequences: What the Supreme Court's Second Amendment Decision in D.C. v. Heller Means for the Future of Gun Laws (PDF)", A White Paper by the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (October 20, 2008; Retrieved February 1, 2014):

    After Heller, the issue is: What reasonable gun laws should be passed that will make our families and communities more safe, without infringing on the right of law-abiding persons to possess guns for self-defense? This framing of the issue will move the debate from the extremes to the middle and, as such, is highly favorable to progress toward a new, sensible, national gun policy.

  41. ^ Eimer, Bruce. Armed - The Essential Guide to Concealed Carry, p. 141 (Gun Digest Books 2012).
  42. ^ “Bill To Make Buying Pepper Spray, Mace Easier In Mass. Stuck In Legislative Limbo”, WBZ-TV (February 21, 2014).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

Please don't use ludicrous sources to make controversial claims in BLPs. You should know better than that. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed that you moved rather than adding things. Well, I have removed the ludicrous sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese He has been widely described as a serial killer. Saying that he has been described so is not a WP:BLP violation. In any case, I will open up an RFC on this rather than edit war. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For controversial claims about living people, it's not enough to assert that "he's been widely described, the sources must be out there somewhere." You must actually cite reliable sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
We did. blogs from newspapers are still reliable, especially for their own opinions and descriptions. In any case, RFC opened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RT (TV network)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RT (TV network). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Help, please[edit]

I'll completely understand if you say no, but can you give me some guidance in how to fill out the RFC/U form? I started one for Sue R.[8] and I cannot figure out how the heck I'm supposed to use it. If you do say no, can you recommend someone who can help? I will ping StarryGrandma, but she's not as available as she used to be. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather I have never done an RFC/U, but the main thing I would think is showing diffs of the problem, and diffs of prior attempts at resolution. however, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#The_nature_of_RfC.2FU Im not sure what you are hoping to accomplish, unless you think there is a genuine miscommunication going on or something. (unless you are using this as an evidence building process for ANI or ArbCom) You may also want to look at Wikipedia:RFC/How_to_present_a_case and talk a look at some of the cases at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive to see how previous cases were handled. Past that, I can answer try to look into any specific questions you have, but I'm afraid I'm a bad resource for "how does it work" as I haven't been involved with one before. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather also make sure you meet the minimum requierments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Minimum_requirements for the RFC/U otherwise it seems you will get a procedural close. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. As usual, thanks for your feedback. I will try again to figure it out and if I can't, and if I don't hear from SG - I guess I'll let it go. (Put simply, what I'm trying to accomplish is to get her to stop hassling me. It really does make me physically sick, and it's unnecessary, since there are dozens of other editors active on pages I'm active on. Briefly, I've no special powers and they're not helpless.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If shes doing the thing where she is following you from page to page and doing mass reverts, showing a set of diffs of that at ANI may be enough for either a warning/block or an iban, but an iban may backfire on you since unless its a one-way iban (rare) she would be able to block you from participating in discussions or editing on some sections of articles be keeping active there. The two of you (and the larger GC/US politics) issue is now perennial at ANI, and I would expect people are not going to take the time to deeply analyze info, but just swat the problem away. Since you do edit primarily on gun control (which has a relatively small number of interesting/important articles), it would not be difficult to corner you if an iban is implemented. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

draft 2013 RFC[edit]

Lightbreather feel free to make edits to the proposed text below, but if you re removing text I ask that you strike it, and if adding bold it so that changes are easy to identify. If making wholesale changes, just make a copy below to discuss. Im using somewhat shorthand grammar/wording, that I think should be clear tht we can cleanup as we get closer to agreeing, but for the first drafts I want to focus on the broad strokes of the RFC rather than the details. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

After sandy hook there were several gun control initiatives. a proposed federal law, executive actions by obama, state laws (control and rights) proposed and passed, and proposals by the NRA. This article currently discusses all of them. Questions

  • Scope -Should the content of the article be restricted to the proposed bill, or should some/all of the other elements be retained
  • Title -If other elements are included, should the title be "AWB 2013" or "GcaSHs" or something else

Possible additional questions[edit]

  • Organization - Should the AWB be the primary focus of the article with other bits as add ons (if included) or should the AWB be a co-equal part
    • Somewhat automatically decided by the two questions above? (so perhaps not needed in the RFC) (IE, the organization is dictated by the title?)
  • Notability/Fork
    • If AWB only, is it notable. IF GcaSHs, is this a fork of the reactions article
      • probably makes the RFC too complex/confusing to get solid consensus on, so I would suggest we table that and deal with the first two issues

Gaijin, please top[edit]

Gaijin, please work with me on the problem we've run into on the new Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article. Isn't ArbCom supposed to be decided in a few days? Aren't editors actions being watched in the meantime? There is no way that the way you highjacked and renamed that article (is there WP jargon for that?), plus the things you've said to me on the article's talk page, can be considered WP:CIVIL.

I just pointed out some facts and made a suggestion on that talk page. Please consider them, instead of siccing Sue on me. You know that makes me sick, and you know she loves doing this. Please, please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Post-nominals[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Post-nominals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)