User talk:Gaijin42

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as User talk:Gaijin42/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

A barnstar for you!

	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)

The CCI you supported has been opened

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789 is now open. Thank you for weighing in on the issue. If you can assist, it would be most welcome! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "3D Printing". 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 3 December 2013.

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. 17:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Craig Breslow

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 3D Printing, 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:PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Foro de São Paulo

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)

WP:CANVASS

I'm sure you've heard of it ... even though you appear to be violating it ES&L 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you need to re-read it? EatsShootsAndLeavesPer the linked guideline Appropriate notification On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Within reason - you seem to have notified far more editors, concerned or not, than would be considered to be "reasonable" ES&L 09:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a canvas problem. Lots of editors on both sides of the issue are getting the notice. And, Gaijin, I actually came to your talk page to suggest posting on some other WikiProject talk pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany & Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. – S. Rich (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That would have been preferable overall ES&L 09:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Shogunate

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

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

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

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gaijin42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

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 雲‍水 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

		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

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

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

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

		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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

Article Rescue Barnstar

		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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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)

Request for Participation - Article for Deletion (Live Wire Radio)

Hello - there is currently difficulty in achieving consensus regarding the proposed deletion of Live Wire Radio. You have been randomly selected to give your opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. If you have a moment, please visit the discussion page here. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. BlueSalix (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)