User talk:TheGunGuru73

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Template:Editnotices/Page/AR-15 style rifle says You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged, you have just ignored this. Please self-revert your change, or I will be asking for discretionary sanctions to be applied. FDW777 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about you just leave it alone? You can look it up, what I said is quite true TheGunGuru73 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can either self-revert now, or I will be asking for sanctions to be applied. FDW777 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about just leave it alone? I know more about gun laws than you do TheGunGuru73 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that, have you met them, also read wp:or, what you know is irrelevant, we go with what wp:rs say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:not. you user names and actions give a strong impression you may be here to wp:rightgreatwrongs. I suggest you edit less contentious areas and learn how we do things before you step over the mark and get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National firearms act[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block the other guy, he’s the one who started the edit war! TheGunGuru73 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read our polcuies, such as wp:or and wp:v and also be clear, who are you accusing of edit warring?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m accusing the people who repeatedly edited out my factual additions to the article this whole thing is about. I can go look their names up if needed TheGunGuru73 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:or and wp:v, you may think its factual, we need RS to say it is. Not wp:editwar has nothing to say about factual accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheGunGuru73, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi TheGunGuru73! 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 experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Firearm Owners Protection Act. You've had policies and sanctions pointed out to you over the past few days. Calling something- of any topic- "unconstitutional" and referring to that as a fact is something that clearly goes into the territory of original research. Do not add this to articles or engage in any form of edit warring. It would be appropriate, however, to discuss it on an article talk page, preferably including reliable sources that back this up. tedder (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I need to do, add in the definition of what “unconstitutional” means? TheGunGuru73 (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, stop adding it to pages, period, you did after receiving my warning . You've been blocked once already. Second, read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. This isn't about a definition, it's about showing that it's more than your opinion. tedder (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To echo and expand upon user Tedder's comments, please perform your due diligence and read about editing on wikipedia, the policies and guidelines, and in particular, read about What Wikipedia is not. By any objective measure, I'm a strong gun rights advocate, a 'gun nut' if you will. I believe that most "gun control" laws are unconstitutional, or would not survive a properly constructed constitutional challenge. That doesn't mean that I get to slap my opinion into encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia relies upon Reliable sources for its voice - not yours, mine, the governments, or our soon Zombie Apocalypse overlords. The constitutionality of a law is determined on the battlefield of Supreme Court jurisprudence - wikipedia is not the Supreme Court, and is not the battleground to fight upon. You are absolutely welcome to your opinions. Wikipedia is not the platform for them. Anastrophe (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:3rr vert very carefully, it is not a right or upper limit. If you make 15 reverts over 15 days that is still wp:editwarring/Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel (at this stage) you need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia."All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Personal knowledge is usually of little value in editing an encyclopedia. Please see the guide for citing sources and/or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. You've ben editing based on your personal opinions. That's not something we do here. Please see above. Please see our policy on no original research. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, y'all need to quit feeding the troll... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79: Can't block someone w/o giving them a chance to understand what they did wrong and amend their behavior. If persuasion fails, there's another option. Jerry Pournelle. King David's Spaceship --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I assure everybody here that this has nothing to do with my opinion. You may ask “what makes it unconstitutional” or something along those lines, or “what’s the evidence that says it’s true”

And the answer is that it’s right there in the United States Constitution, in the second amendment to be more exact. If I need to reword it and say something along the lines of “in violation of the second amendment” and cite the page which includes the second amendment, I will gladly do so. I thought it was rather self explanatory though TheGunGuru73 (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not rely on your interpretation of the Second Amendment to call the law unconstitutional. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s only one way to interpret the second amendment, and that’s by reading what it says. It’s not indirect, it doesn’t leave anything up for debate, it says what it says period. TheGunGuru73 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much chance of your continued editing here. You appear to be unwilling to READ ANYTHING that you've been helpfully pointed to in order to learn what wikipedia is, and how it works. If you are unwilling to learn, you are highly unlikely to remain able to edit here. Sort of like if you don't bother to learn how to use a chainsaw, you're likely to lose your fingers, at bare minimum.

Your choice, certainly. Anastrophe (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Anastrophe, would you care to tell me how to cite an edit to make certain words take you to a specific page? That seems to be everybody’s problem so just let me know how to do that and problem solved TheGunGuru73 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been provided numerous links above that you can follow to start down the path of editing on wikipedia. You should read those before attempting to edit further on active articles. You can use your 'sandbox' pages to try things out. Anastrophe (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you yet read -

Those are just some of the appropriate starting points you should be investigating at this stage. Simply saying 'read the second amendment' then slapping a link to, say, the second amendment article isn't going to work. You have to state what someone other than you, who is considered a reliable source, has said about the matter. Find a quote from a notable constitutional lawyer who has stated that the law is unconstitutional. Verify the integrity of that person. See if that person might not already be mentioned in the article. Then read the entire article, and see where, within it, that information would be appropriately positioned (the first sentence or 'lead' of the article is not that place). Post your tentative edits on the talk page and ask other editors - your peers - if they think the inclusion will work. You will likely receive pushback. If you do, your peers will likely point you to the reasons the inclusion would not work, and under what policy or guideline.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. One editor, charging into the room and slapping his own opinions onto active articles without bothering to learn both the policies and the etiquette - yes, etiquette, 'getting along' is crucial to collaboration - required to work collaboratively will typically be shown the door. That same person will often just create a new account, and try doing the same thing. Over and over. One of the great features of wikipedia is that when you visit an article (and you configure your settings appropriately), it will 'remember' that you did so, and any time there is a change to the article, you receive a helpful email alerting you to that change. Why do I mention that great feature? Because countless people have visited the article in question, and any time there's a new edit, they get an alert. And they then quickly revert the edit if it doesn't meet the requirements necessary. So, you might get your commentary posted, for a few minutes. Then it will be gone.

Instead, you can enter the room, introduce yourself, ask where the coffee is, and if you can get a scratchpad to take notes with. Then start reading the introduction to the project that we're all working on. Then, after a while, start doing some edits. On non-controversial topics (great way to do so - click the 'Random article' link on the left, most articles are non-controversial). See how the editing goes, if you did it right, and if you break something, try and fix it. If you can't figure it out, ask on the talk page, or visit the Tea House, linked to above, and friendly people will help you learn.

It's your choice which path you take. One of them is likely to be successful, the other, not so much. We welcome new editors. But we don't welcome people yelling and slamming doors while we're trying to concentrate on building a reliable source of information for the entire world. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to explain.

We cannot use how we read a law to determine what the law means (after all the Second also mentions "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" So I read that as meaning that in time of war the citizens can have guns, if they are part of a formal militia). This is why we do not allow it, different people can come to different conclusions about the same document (and why would your view be any more relevant than mine?). So we go by how reliable sources interpret this law. So you need to wp:cite and claim you add to an article to a reliable source. It is really just that simple.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 indef block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. tedder (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, or any other administrator, can unblock you after you have read about the structure of Wikipedia and have some understanding. tedder (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block' --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]