User talk:Felsic

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

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

Request reason:

The IP I was using, an open wifi at a medical center, was blocked the other day because someone realized it has open ports.? I was told to request an account, but that didn't work out. I've made a special trip to a library to create an account, but what I want to do is edit from the medical center, where I spend more time than I oughta. The details of the open ports are at the IP talk page, user talk:162.119.231.132. I'm requesting an IP exemption. The IP is not an anonymizing proxy and I promise not to misuse the privilege. Felsic (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC) :Here I am trying to edit from the medical center wifi, using a registered account, but getting the block notice. Felsic (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See my comment on the IP talk page. Rightly or wrongly, the IP address is still subject to a range block, but that range block is anon-only, so you should be able to edit from this account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elockid: We talked a few days ago about this editor. He edits from the waiting room of a medical center, where he spends a lot of time. Despite no evidence of vandalism or other bad-faith evidence, the IP was blocked. At the discussion Not a proxy he was told to register an account so that he can be given a block exemption. Can you please help with this request? Lightbreather (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic, I don't think Elockid is on WP today, so I will ping Mike V since he is also familiar with the situation. Lightbreather (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's damn frustrating to read an article that needs fixing and being unable to fix it. If we can't make this work today then I hope we can do it soon. Felsic (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much obliged to JamesBWatson and Lightbreather and the crew for their help. Felsic (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Felsic! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction (DS) alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Felsic (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tea time?

Felsic, may I suggest a cup of herbal tea? Don't make me regret helping you out of that IP jam... ;-)

Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GSL

Hi, Felsic. May we please discuss why you changed Miguel's BRD before letting the discussion play out? I realize you two do not seem to get along, and you have your reasons, but this affects all of us. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer if I just did the "revert" part of BRD instead, like some editors prefer? I left his text there. All I did was move it down and edit it a little so we don't have WP saying that background checks are a euphemism for gun confiscation. Tell you what, you can spend the whole goddamn weekend trying to work out a compromise. Take a week, two even if that's what it takes. Lottsa luck with that. If you succeed I'll nominate you for sainthood. Felsic (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you think I'm wasting my time here and on the GSL article? Perhaps you think the article would do better without me there trying to find some consensus on a compromise. FYI, LB and I were the main ones that fought to get GSL back from just being a section on "Gun Shows of America". Some of the editors there wouldn't even consider giving it a proper section title. Do you know how we did it? We talked it out... We didn't give up on each other. But, perhaps you're right. Maybe you do know better than I, and I am just wasting my time on all the wrong things. Have your methods really been as successful as your attitude suggests? If so, I'm happy for you, but if not, let me know. Or don't. I won't bother you again. Darknipples (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DN on this, Felsic. We are trying to collaborate. Also, can you tone down your language on the talk page and in edit summaries?

DN, one thing that ME was doing wrong was adding stuff directly to the lead that wasn't in the article body. The other was just copying stuff from the body to the lead. I think we almost have the article balanced, and then we can complete the lead.

I have houseguests but should be free tomorrow afternoon, Sunday, or Monday at latest. Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ladies. Didn't mean to cause you no trouble. You can stick with that GSL article and I'll go find other stuff to do and stay out of your hair. Felsic (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for DN, but I appreciate your help, just stay cool, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am only here to ask that you please, please, please, stop being so confrontational as per WP:CIVIL. I realize it's frustrating, but if you get angry about something they do, please try to discuss the issue with the entire group instead going off or getting passive aggressive with the ones you are having issues with. Sorry, I think may have misread your comments. Please disregard. Darknipples (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to warn ya. An editor who uses a sockpuppet to support him in an editing dispute isn't gonna compromise easily. It's just not in his nature. See The Scorpion and the Frog. Felsic (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Rifle Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preemption. 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) 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Comments like "gimme a break" can come across as not assuming good faith. You appear to have a tendency to call things how you see them, which is fine, but please be aware of how text can be interpreted in different ways. What you mean as a brief aside can come across as an accusation. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Politics Task Force proposal

You might be interested in this. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

~~I have opened a sockpuppet investigation, as I believe you to be a sockpuppet of Lightbreather. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Based on the evidence that GRuban presented here, it appears I was incorrect. My apologies. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just thought you might like to know, GSL is up for GA review. I've been trying to make updates, then there's the SOS from the SOS [1]. (Extends white Flag & Olive Branch) [2] Darknipples (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]