User talk:TXGRunner
| This is TXGRunner's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
First Idea
[edit]Ref the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield_wildcat_cartridges page. I tried to remove the unsubstantiated opinions by adding citations for some expert opinion and altering other comments to reflect quantifiable differences (e.g. case capacity) or qualified differences (e.g. long range performance = the bullet will remain supersonic and stabilized for longer distances).
I would like to remove the flag about the need for clean-up in the article.
I am curious who the *we* are in the comment ([1]), and did you mean to suggest that non-*we* editors are prone to "mass hysteria"? I would appreciate if you could clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you check the dicsussion, you should see I clarified 'we' meant Wikipedia.
- I'd appreciate it if you didn't take quotes out of context or add emphasis that wasn't there. Like everyone, I have a POV. Based on your posts, I think you have one too. To achieve a stable NPOV in the articles, I think consensus is a necessary pre-requisite. Achieving consensus is very difficult when passions are running high and the environment is emotionally charged. That is all that summary of thewolfchild's argument meant. Do you disagree? Do you think stable consensus among opposed points of view can best be achieved when people are emotionally on edge and upset? Or are you arguing people are just as calm and dispassionate about firearms now as they were before the mass murder in Florida?TXGRunner (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
- Are you
emotionally on edge and upset
? If not, who does this comment apply to? Please be specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are you
- I'd appreciate it if you didn't take quotes out of context or add emphasis that wasn't there. Like everyone, I have a POV. Based on your posts, I think you have one too. To achieve a stable NPOV in the articles, I think consensus is a necessary pre-requisite. Achieving consensus is very difficult when passions are running high and the environment is emotionally charged. That is all that summary of thewolfchild's argument meant. Do you disagree? Do you think stable consensus among opposed points of view can best be achieved when people are emotionally on edge and upset? Or are you arguing people are just as calm and dispassionate about firearms now as they were before the mass murder in Florida?TXGRunner (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
- I've limited my comments to discussing article content, adherence to Wikipedia policy, and advocating building a consensus for edits. Clearly, my comment regarding emotional states is referring to the general environment, not to specific individuals. Those comments were in the context of suggesting we refrain from making large-scale edits until more RS information is available and the environment is less emotionally charged. If you disagree with my assessment of the current environment and/or the wisdom of deferring major changes until more is known, then we can agree to disagree. TXGRunner (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
+1
[edit]
Hello TXGRunner, I've just added talk-page template for your convenience. Hope you like it. Sections which are old can be deleted or send do archives with Template:Archives or similar functions.
- sometimes it might be helpful to include a email-adress. Try this: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo (I tried to mail you but it could not work.)
- about books and siamese-mauser etc. pp. see some infos are in our german library collection try de:Portal:Waffen/Mitarbeit/Quellen IB
- about your trip to asia: have a nice time and make pics. f.e. I worked with a colleague about Type 93 torpedo it was extremely difficult to understand the technical details. If you make any pics in museums pls. consider to make detailed photographs. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)