Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:36, 30 July 2012

Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space

Empty page with no content. Disruption by a user involved in content dispute related to the 2012 Aurora shooting. User keeps trying to move any discussion about adding content about federal and state laws related to the shooting to different talk pages to distract and reframe the discussion. User is welcome to recreate the page in his user space. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added content. I feel this issue should be discussed but in a proper forum and not as a coatrack in other articles. Wp has no guideline specific to it, so I am attempting to create one. Anyone may feel free to assist.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea. Like I told you repeatedly at WP:ANI, it would be best to drop this subject. Feel free to create something similar in your own userspace, if you get consensus you can move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Arcandam (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wp has guidelines for blps. It does not have seperate ones for ethnicity, religon, and sexual orientation. I have seen these brought with Bob Dylan and Jodie Foster as well as others. I see no reason why we can't have the discussions all in one forum to create a guideline or policy. This will avoid the same discussions every time an edit war happens. They can reach consenus easier by citing the guideline and policy better than citing other articles that have had various outcomes. These various outcomes may have been caused for many reasons including bullying, canvassing, editors giving up as you suggest, etc, etc. I have said all I wish to on this matter for now. I think we should let others weigh in on it as well. I will respond to any new points brought up if I feel they warrant a response.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Drop this subject. Move your attention elsewhere. Arcandam (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Your message is not very clear, I am not really certain what you meant.[reply]

I mean gun debates, ethnicity, religon, and sexual orientation could all use more policy and guidelines. They are beaten to death all over WMF; in articles, talk pages, dispute forums, etc. This one is only six existing policies I have cited in one forum. DUE, COATRACK, CRIME, RS, NOTNEWS, and CRYSTAL. Feel free to add POV, COI, STICK, BLP, and any others you wish. With all combined in forums to sort the policies involved then we should be able to avoid debates in all the other forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before: "Feel free to create something similar in your own userspace, if you get consensus you can move it to the Wikipedia namespace". But to be honest I don't think you should focus your attention on creating guidelines and policies, and especially not on this subject. Policies and guidelines are not your forte as far as I can see. To outsiders it just looks like you are trying to make this discussion as long as possible. Just drop it. Arcandam (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated numerous times in all the wikidrama forums this is in: I am neutral in the gun debate. It seems to me that many editors are not and are fighting include/exclude battles on it. I don't intend to create policy myself unilaterally. I proposed this as one solution to limit the endless wikidrama that seems to be far too rampant on this and the other debates mentioned above. You keep repeating the same points. I keep repeating the same answers. I think we should let others have some input on it now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed I am not an admin. I have been rather patient and repetitive, trying to explain stuff, some of our admins are a bit more triggerhappy than I am. Arcandam (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If admin wish to weigh in on their views about this proposal I have no qualms with that. If a "triggerhappy" admin wishes to delete it I don't know how well that would go over with consensus policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand: a triggerhappy admin would've blocked you for a while after your recent ANI thread. You clearly misunderstand our policies, so perhaps you shouldn't be trying to write a policy or guideline yourself. But if you do, do it in your own userspace. And please drop your stick. Arcandam (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does that page help us towards our goal of producing an encyclopedia? It doesn't. Delete. Arcandam (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD: "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated [for deletion]. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors."--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being disingenuous, again. Your blank "proposal" was nominated at 19:35, 29 July 2012‎ when it was an empty page devoid of content that you created for no other purpose than disruption.[1] Somewhere around 3 hours later, after this page was nominated for deletion, you began adding content.[2] If this was a good faith proposal I would of course, withdraw this nomination. However, this is not a good faith proposal, in fact, it is not a "proposal" of any kind but a personal essay that you decided to inflict on the community that currently represents your opinion, an opinion that is not supported. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Since hell would have to freeze over before you ever admitted that this was not a proposal for a policy, and since it is quite clear this is a personal essay that you will not allow others to edit and contradicts widespread consensus established by our core policies, such as WP:NPOV as an example, I maintain this deletion nomination and request that this page is deleted and that you work on your "proposal" in your user space. There's no way in hell you're going to change or contradict our policy on NPOV so this proposal has nowhere to go but into your user space. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, its not going to work, don't you see that? This is not a serious proposal for a policy/guideline. It is just another way to make the discussion longer. Arcandam (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone can claim it as an essay and in my first response above I asked others to help edit it. So it is not OWN nor "essays that the author does not want others to edit" as argued above. It is a small collection of existing policy set in a format to create a new policy that others may agree that we could benefit from here. Wp is not sensored. If you don't like it or disagree with it then take it off your watch lists. You will never see it again until it may become policy and then cited in gun articles. If you think it is POV then edit it to balance POV with your opinons about the 'gun thing'. As I have said many times before I am neutral on it but believe we need policy for those that are not. I created it, went to respond to an edit or 12 and then fell asleep. I did not create it blank. I left a message for others as a starting place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what an essay is in the context of Wikipedia? Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. Stop saying you are neutral, you are not. Almost no one is (if we exclude dead people, they are pretty neutral). This will never be something that belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, but if you do not believe me feel free to make a policy/guideline proposal in your userspace and try to get consensus for it. Arcandam (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither my opinion nor advice. It is merely a basic framework for a proposed policy. Where do you see any opinion in it? I formatted it to match most of the policies/gudelines in wp. Where do you see that the format differs or which material is opinion?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we are communicating in the same language. If you have a good proposal and it gets some support, cool, post it in the Wikipedia: namespace. But as long as you haven't: make it in your own userspace. Arcandam (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Delete - Seems to qualify as a user essay (often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or do not contain enough advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors to be considered a Wikipedia essay). I could see the topic being developed into an essay placed in the project namespace, but I don't see the actual posting going towards that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that all the edits are mine but I barely wrote it at all. I used arguments from both sides of the 'gun thing' to try to create a balanced policy. My name may be the only one on it, but many more have created it by refining their policy points in numerous other discussions besides just the 'gun thing'--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above? You need to make a proposal in your userspace. If you have a good proposal and it gets some support, cool, post it in the Wikipedia namespace. But as long as you haven't it should be in your own userspace. Do you know what a namespace is??? Arcandam (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seems many of the ones in Category:Wikipedia proposals are not in user space, only have one editor, are far lamer than mine, make no sense, will never fly, etc, etc. It also seems that this is the only one with a long deletion debate that keeps wasting time by repeating the same points, over, and over, and over, and over.......--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see a WP:IDHT-problem. I asked you to read a couple of things, you haven't read them. I've asked you a couple of questions and made a couple of comments, you failed to respond to them. But you keep posting offtopic stuff over and over again. Please stop doing that. Respond to the questions and read the stuff you are advised to read. Arcandam (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.[reply]

I feel I have answered all of your questions. I have posted examples to back up my points, not "offtopic stuff". You are the one that seems to have a problem with WP:IDHT. You either disagree with my points, can't fathom them, won't accept them, etc, etc. I feel we should let others respond and see if they have any new points instead of the ones that we repeat over, and over, and over, and over...... Should we go back and count how many times we have done that?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be how you feel, but in reality you have not. Do you want some examples of the offtopic stuff you posted?

I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.

Shows I am neutral on the subject. I have been at both ends of them when they are in opertation. --Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think this is on-topic and useful? And what about this next quote?

A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.

Taken out of context (whole quote isn't there). Shows that even if you have been bitten or shot at it may not affect your opinion on dogs and guns and can remain neutral in dog/gun debates.

Or this one?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?

Same NPOV issue. They want to include material in an article as relevant when it happened long ago. The sources are speculating today on something that happened 20 years ago.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even sure if you understand what a policy is, because you wrote stuff like:

"You will never see it again until it may become policy and then cited in gun articles".

If you don't like something, just ignore it and walk away until it comes to you and bites or shoots you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And:

"If a "triggerhappy" admin wishes to delete it I don't know how well that would go over with consensus policy."

If admin are "triggerhappy" too often then policy may bite or shoot them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arcandam (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ::<small>I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.</small>
+:::Shows I am neutral on the subject. I have been at both ends of them when they are in opertation. --[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 :Do you honestly think this is on-topic and useful? And what about this next quote?
 ::<small>A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.</small>
+:::Taken out of context (whole quote isn't there). Shows that even if you have been bitten or shot at it may not affect your opinion on dogs and guns and can remain neutral in dog/gun debates.
+:Or this one?--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
-:Or this one?
 ::<small>People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?</small>
+:::Same NPOV issue. They want to include material in an article as relevant when it happened long ago. The sources are speculating today on something that happened 20 years ago.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 :I am not even sure if you understand what a policy is, because you wrote stuff like:
 ::<small>"You will never see it again until it may become policy and then cited in gun articles".</small>
+:::If you don't like something, just ignore it and walk away until it comes to you and bites or shoots you.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 :And:
 ::<small>"If a "triggerhappy" admin wishes to delete it I don't know how well that would go over with consensus policy."</small>
+:::If admin are "triggerhappy" too often then policy may bite or shoot them.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 :[[User:Arcandam|Arcandam]] ([[User talk:Arcandam|talk]]) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)