User talk:Scalhotrod: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:37, 15 May 2014 view source208.54.35.173 (talk) →Warning about Lightbreather: modified to state the old panel vans came from above post about the Metro van← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:37, 15 May 2014 view source Scalhotrod (talk \| contribs)18,672 edits →Heads up: ReplyNext edit →
Line 2,889:		Line 2,889:

	==Heads up==		==Heads up==
	I got tired of false accusations and bullying of editors by Lightbreather so after attacking me I opened an Arbcom which was related to the ~~accussations~~ Lightbreather made against you. I do understand if you want to lay low as she stated you have made up to which I responded was switching tactics when her attempt to silence you failed. I am posting so you are aware of the situation at Arbcom. ] (]) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)		I got tired of false accusations and bullying of editors by Lightbreather so after attacking me I opened an Arbcom which was related to the accusations Lightbreather made against you. I do understand if you want to lay low as she stated you have made up to which I responded was switching tactics when her attempt to silence you failed. I am posting so you are aware of the situation at Arbcom. ] (]) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
			:I'm happy to answer questions assuming that this is not some sort of "witch hunt". Otherwise, I'm not sure how to respond to this. --] (]) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:37, 15 May 2014


User	Talk	Contributions	eMail	Articles	WikiProjects	Bookmarks	My Sandbox

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

"Here on Misplaced Pages, it's OK to be an idiot or do something stupid as long as you are willing to take responsibility and own up to it when you are called on it." - Source Unknown

Just as "ignorance of the law" is no excuse for breaking it, personal ignorance of any subject here on Misplaced Pages is no excuse for deletion, significant change, or general mucking up of ANY article. WP policy not-with-standing, extolling whatever rule that suits an interest under the guise of being an ignorant dolt is never justification for any edit.

Sadly, I am the author of this article... WikiBigotry

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for helping to peacefully resolve a great many of the challenges that we're seeing in some of our firearms articles. Justanonymous (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your recent (fantastic) articles on things as varied as architects, popular culture and the banjo, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the great work! :). Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

I just want to say you are doing a great job of taking the workload of working on the lede in the Second Amendment article. Im making quibbles to make improvements that I see, but I do not want you to interpret that as anything other than collaboration - you are doing the tough job of proposing text, and getting shot down by everyone else :). I think the various revisions are noticeably better from revision to revision, and we are narrowing in on something that everyone can agree to. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 43 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Cavarrone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

International Harvester Metro photo

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at SJ Morg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IMFDB

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Zackmann08's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm MrX. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Death's Apprentice, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, MrX

ANI on Andy

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
709	Defence mechanisms (talk)	Add sources
249	Playboy Online (talk)	Add sources
70	Caplock mechanism (talk)	Add sources
28	Allison Parks (talk)	Add sources
41	Tactical pants (talk)	Add sources
10	EnvisionTEC (talk)	Add sources
386	Hillary Fisher (talk)	Cleanup
720	Occupational safety and health (talk)	Cleanup
5,228	Narcissistic personality disorder (talk)	Cleanup
1,178	2012 Aurora shooting (talk)	Expand
286	Gun law in the United States (talk)	Expand
367	Border Security Force (talk)	Expand
124	Shae Marks (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,377	Usage share of web browsers (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,156	Legal status of Internet pornography (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
290	Playboy Enterprises (talk)	Merge
89	Larry Elder (talk)	Merge
75	Consumer-to-consumer (talk)	Merge
5	Tshegofatso Seakgoe (talk)	Wikify
11,660	Internet Movie Database (talk)	Wikify
0	Neocollyris compressicollis (talk)	Wikify
49	April Summers (talk)	Orphan
1	Scott Windiz (talk)	Orphan
13	Jade Fairbrother (talk)	Orphan
92	Hiromi Oshima (talk)	Stub
188	Tina Marie Jordan (talk)	Stub
16	Sharon Johansen (talk)	Stub
15	Tom Stevens (politician) (talk)	Stub
2	Jeanne Flanagan (talk)	Stub
61	Christa Speck (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. --

Remington

Unfortunately my "edit" of the remington NMA article didn't really come across as intended. The system has greatly complicated uploading pictures and somehow, the caption didnt' make it to the article. Basically, the picture shows a 45 colt R&D conversion cylinder group at 12 0'clock and a ball/fffg group to the right both fired one-handed from 25 yards. User:Michael E. Cumpston (talk | contribs) at 09:08, February 4, 2014

Meaningless message begins now...

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean this with sincerity and due respect, but HUH? What are you talking about? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, assumed you'd know. where you said "Expanding article with content and sources from related articles". I clearly should have tweaked the message as nothing's been attributed anyway. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, A Beautiful Life (2009 film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, A Beautiful Life (2009 film). First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – A Beautiful Life (2008 film). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at A Beautiful Life (2008 film) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That other article did not come up when I searched, please ask Spartaz or another Admin to delete it, thanks. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Joanna Angel page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Favor, please

Could you do me and other editors on the Gun politics in the U.S. page and not make lots of edits in one edit - and leave better edit summaries? Edits like this one. I used to do these kinds, for which I'd get my head chewed off. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your perception of my edits, I'm editing in the same way that I do on any article, gun related or otherwise. Difs can be perceived both ways, I'm not someone who is trying to quickly rack up an edit count, but I do try to edit in "manageable chunks". Its not unusual for me to do "full article" edits and completely overhaul a stub or badly formatted article.

As for my edit summaries, sure, I'm happy to add more detail. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not asking you to change your habits across Misplaced Pages - only on gun related articles. I think that's fair, since others (including myself) have been asked to do so. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm happy to add more detail to the Summaries, but I'm not making any promises regarding my edit style. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. But if anyone gives me any crap about doing "big" edits like that, I hope you won't join in... and maybe even help me. :-) Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be the first to defend good editing, grammar, vocabulary usage, and reasonable thinking even if it means a complete reversal of an opinion I hold. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Where should we discuss this?

Obviously we have a disagreement about the 21st century advocacy section and sources. I though this last edit and summary of yours was a little harsh. Where shall we discuss? If not here, would you start the discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I already started it here... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? That link seems to be about the Types of firearms section, which I think is overblown for the article - so I thank you for that. Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, you meant the explanation stuff. OK... here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stripper. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
	Sexual fetishism (talk)	Add sources
	Sexual stimulation (talk)	Add sources
	Overview of gun laws by nation (talk)	Add sources
	The Golden Nymphs (talk)	Add sources
	AVN Award (talk)	Add sources
1,136	Anikka Albrite (talk)	Add sources
	Human rights in the United States (talk)	Cleanup
	Media portrayal of lesbianism (talk)	Cleanup
	John D'Agostino (poker player) (talk)	Cleanup
	Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (talk)	Expand
	Gail Dines (talk)	Expand
	Raven Rockette (talk)	Expand
	Gary Owens (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
	Sex show (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
	Sex position (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
	2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (talk)	Merge
	Mozarabs (talk)	Merge
552	Censorship in Turkey (talk)	Merge
	Kinniku Banzuke (talk)	Wikify
	Religious views on pornography (talk)	Wikify
	National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (talk)	Wikify
	Sable Communications of California v. FCC (talk)	Orphan
	Ear embryology (talk)	Orphan
	Elena Berkova (talk)	Orphan
	Peter Birkett (talk)	Stub
	Mark Ashley (talk)	Stub
	Hazel Tucker (talk)	Stub
79	Genesis (magazine) (talk)	Stub
	Just Before Losing Everything (talk)	Stub
	Leilani Leeane (talk)	Stub

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Faye Reagan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Girls Gone Wild

Joanna Angel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scrapper

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Hook article

I think you're being a bit unreasonable here, particularly since the initial edit you reverted treated the President's comment as a statement of fact. My edit clearly attributed it to him and added the NRA because he directed his comment at Republicans and the NRA. I think you should compare my initial edit to the version before. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's quite clearly you that being unreasonable. I removed the commentary entirely, no president's remarks, no parties, no NRA. The article is about the shooting and the section is about things related to gun control since the incident. What's unreasonable about keeping the political debate and rhetoric out of this artile? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The entire section is about commentary. It's the subsection under "Reactions" covering "Gun control". The push for more gun control (and resultant push against it) was perhaps the most prominent national reaction to Sandy Hook. The section opens with a direct quote from the President explaining his intentions, the body of the section contains quotes and reactions from various politicians and groups on both sides of the debate, and the closing covers the defeat of the only Bill that saw a vote at the national level, and quotes from both sides of the aisle, including the President. That's not just neutral, that's good writing, I think. The only part I took out was a single word that treated Obama's words as fact (and since he was criticizing Republicans and the NRA, that's clearly not neutral), and adding the NRA, since in the quote he specifically directs his criticism at both Republicans and the NRA.

I'm note sure what you're classifying as rhetoric, but your suggestion to keep politics out of a section specifically covering a political issue confuses me. If anything this section should cover legislative reaction to Sandy Hook (ie, new gun control laws in Colorado, New York, Maryland and Connecticut) in far more detail. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective you seem to be confusing rhetoric (and editorial) with facts. The President's remarks about the push for gun control are appropriate, his views on the parties regarding the legislation not going he wanted it to are not. Do you understand the difference? The comments invite other editorial opinion and that is not what the article is about, plain and simple. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonable take, but I still disagree, largely because the president was the focal-point for gun control efforts, so when they failed it's reasonable to include his reaction. The section also includes analysis from the NRA and a reaction from a Republican lawmaker. Misplaced Pages can't endorse a specific viewpoint (as some of the editors on the talk page certainly did), but it can report the viewpoints of others. It's reasonable to believe that readers will agree with one and disagree with another, and as evidence I'll use another comment from the talk section from an editor who apparently felt the article unfairly represented the pro-gun rights side. As it stands I feel the article fairly covers both while endorsing neither. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI - it seems there have been some pretty drastic changes to the article over the past 48 hours. I've made my opinions known and will now likely recuse myself of further edits, outside reverting vandalism and keeping an eye on the conspiracy theory article. Thanks for your time, and I'm sorry you and I could not come to a consensus. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but...

Although I truly appreciate your efforts in saving articles for notable pornographic actors and actresses, I'm afraid you might be a little confused about WP:PORNBIO. If pornography is all a certain actor/actress is known for, s/he isn't automatically notable if s/he won any porn award (group and scene-related awards don't qualify, although they did in the past). Of course, there are exceptions when the actor is also notable elsewhere; for example, Raven Rockette is still notable because she also did some mainstream work.

Have a nice day. :) Erpert 01:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Circa the end of January when the edit you're referring to was made, I'd have to say that many of us were "confused" regarding the PORNBIO guidelines. I'm not sure of when I became aware of the "scene awards don't qualify" exception, but I am now. I realize that we, for the most part, are trying to work together for the betterment of the site, but a lot has happened with the Porn guidelines in the last few months. Even I'll admit that there are more than a few articles that should have never been created to begin with. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
68	Single bond (talk)	Add sources
113	Angelica Costello (talk)	Add sources
477	Brianna Love (talk)	Add sources
2,774	The World's End (film) (talk)	Add sources
1,100	Pornography in Japan (talk)	Add sources
119	Alexandra Quinn (talk)	Add sources
29	Agnews Developmental Center (talk)	Cleanup
841	School shooting (talk)	Cleanup
36	LGBT history in Singapore (talk)	Cleanup
723	Sexual revolution (talk)	Expand
1,433	Kung Fu Panda (talk)	Expand
13	Park golf (talk)	Expand
154	Editing of anime in American distribution (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
591	Sean Paul Lockhart (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
260	Militia movement (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
148	Anal vibrator (talk)	Merge
110	International cybercrime (talk)	Merge
41	Anti-pedophile activism (talk)	Merge
44	Sam and Twitch (talk)	Wikify
31	1997 in home video (talk)	Wikify
98	Mobile phone overuse (talk)	Wikify
94	Anja Juliette Laval (talk)	Orphan
174	Sabrina Blond (talk)	Orphan
69	Amber Sym (talk)	Orphan
78	Eric Edwards (pornographic actor) (talk)	Stub
292	Roxy Jezel (talk)	Stub
26	Adultcon (talk)	Stub
33	Sin City (studio) (talk)	Stub
390	Alexis Love (talk)	Stub
657	Adrianna Luna (talk)	Stub

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Talk Page

Talk:US_Airways Already started a discussion on it. Let's hope it won't get removed again. But I won't hold my breath. Tutelary (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

When I saw that articles about what happened and the fact that their Twitter page was outranking their home page and the Misplaced Pages article, I knew that this was no ordinary incident. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Gina Lynn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Belladonna

Melissa Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Thomas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear you

I've been staying away from that article for the most part as it is a complete mess, but I almost threw an "Essay" tag on it last night because that's how it reads. Thanks for taking the initiative to fix it. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I also clarified the NFA/GCA verbiage as it was focused just on machine guns which we know was not the intention. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michaëlle Jean

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michaëlle Jean. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
221	President of North Korea (talk)	Add sources
223	Exxxotica (talk)	Add sources
649	Franceska Jaimes (talk)	Add sources
85	Opposition to pornography (talk)	Add sources
412	Diamond Foxxx (talk)	Add sources
12,047	Bitcoin (talk)	Add sources
39	International Lonestar (talk)	Cleanup
1,244	Sexism (talk)	Cleanup
274	Side-scan sonar (talk)	Cleanup
112	Features of the Opera web browser (talk)	Expand
36	Scooby-Doo's Haunted Mansion (talk)	Expand
682	Erotic literature (talk)	Expand
730	Legal status of Internet pornography (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,759	History of sex in India (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
588	Annabel Chong (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
163	Eternal President of the Republic (talk)	Merge
1,026	MILF pornography (talk)	Merge
338	Is Anyone Up? (talk)	Merge
2,351	M. Night Shyamalan (talk)	Wikify
61	Julia Parton (talk)	Wikify
350	Timeline of LGBT history (talk)	Wikify
20	Freddy Dalton (talk)	Orphan
28	Jazella Moore (talk)	Orphan
52	Alexsander Freitas (talk)	Orphan
27	Harmony Lessons (talk)	Stub
22	Tony Kelly (photographer) (talk)	Stub
17	Dan O'Connell (director) (talk)	Stub
133	Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (talk)	Stub
1,093	Samantha Saint (talk)	Stub
4	Huldreich Georg Früh (talk)	Stub

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tanya Hyde, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and AFD (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) 08:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Why?

The original percentages in numerals were MOS compliant. Why do you insist on spelling them out? Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple, words force the reader to actually read the text in its context and not just skim it. It actually helps to convey the information in a cohesive manner. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

According to whom? I follow the AP Styleguide and it say no such thing. Lightbreather (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I follow my experience from twenty-five years of editing, then again I'm just as capable of writing crap as anyone. I'm also in favor on not dumbing down articles to a 5th grade reader level like most newspapers. If you choose to use a writing guide, that's your prerogative. Please don't be upset when others do not wish to have it inflicted on them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That reply was a bit harsh. Misplaced Pages follows std style rules unless there's an agreement on an exception. You have 3 Rs on Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, I think. I hope you'll let it go. Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Any perception of harshness is entirely in your interpretation. Please own up to that and stop blaming others for how you feel. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, wikipedia follows wikipedia's style guide. AP is a nice guide, but it has no relevance to the wiki. Both forms are allowed in MOS:NUMERAL and this is an item that will just have to be dealt with via consensus. But to both of you, aren't there real issues where our energy is better spent than bickering over what format we put numbers in? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

From WP:MOS:

Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

The 2nd and final sentences apply especially here, I think. Lightbreather (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, you're the one that took offense by the change and reverted it. If you're going to cite a policy that allows for both styles and then state that "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable", then this perceived problem is entirely your creation. I'm not the one that others have accused of OWNERSHIP and this kind of behavior is an example of that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I fear on this issue, I think LB has the better of you. Between the bit quoted above, and WP:STATUSQUO the onus would be on you to develop a consensus to change. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's understandable stance, but the fault here still lies with LB for reverting the change. If its truly an optional style, then it should not have mattered, but it did and now she's defending it. That's a pretty straightforward indication of WP:OWNERSHIP. I made a change, LB made an "issue" out of it. We would not be having this discussion if it were not the case. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." More than one style is acceptable. You changed from the one that was already used to another, without giving a good reason. You gave your reason, after I asked you here, but it doesn't sync with what journalists and other writers are taught. But please, let's let it go - especially the character stuff. Lightbreather (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia" do you not get? Since when are journalists or other writers taught to write for encyclopedias? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that trained writers, including those that write for encyclopedias, use style guides. Here is a link to an Encyclopedia Britannica article:

Assault Weapons: Year in Review 2013. Do they spell out numbers over nine, or use numerals? Lightbreather (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice example, is the horse sufficiently dead or would you like to beat it more? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

revert

I only meant to revert that last change, not the one before. Sorry. I have re-implemented your prior edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to Lightbreather and Scalhotrod on that, I am not taking a stand either way on the numeral change, I just didn't mean to revert that, so I undid my own change. I shouldn't be counted toward consensus either way on that point. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. BTW, I reverted the restoration of the appointment. The source cited makes no connection to the Sandy Hook incident. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
646	AVN Best New Starlet Award (talk)	Add sources
200	Scott Nails (talk)	Add sources
190	Award (talk)	Add sources
135	Fashionistas (talk)	Add sources
189	Shoppers Drug Mart (talk)	Add sources
39	Caballero Home Video (talk)	Add sources
83	SNL Financial (talk)	Cleanup
133	Layered clothing (talk)	Cleanup
52	Gun politics in Finland (talk)	Cleanup
2,782	Phil Coulson (talk)	Expand
377	Outline of human sexuality (talk)	Expand
152	Rape pornography (talk)	Expand
1,458	City (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
88	Bondage pornography (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
93	Little Oral Annie (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
699	Female dominance (talk)	Merge
628	President of South Africa (talk)	Merge
239	G-Spot vibrator (talk)	Merge
521	Omorashi (talk)	Wikify
673	Emmalyn Estrada (talk)	Wikify
95	Attraction to disability (talk)	Wikify
16	Saffron Taylor (talk)	Orphan
224	April Summers (talk)	Orphan
15	Alie Layus (talk)	Orphan
255	Avy Scott (talk)	Stub
136	Sarah Shevon (talk)	Stub
120	Jesse Capelli (talk)	Stub
5	Morgans Bay (talk)	Stub
1,294	Nicole Aniston (talk)	Stub
42	CP 55,940 (talk)	Stub

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Gun politics in the United States‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Cwobeel (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not on the side of the train riders, so they will do everything they can to fuck with you and eventually block or ban you.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Trains...?! Cool, I love trains... :) I'm not worried in the slightest. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not either, apparently some button clicker who never heard the F word thinks I'm a dirty whore because I used it once and has to keep mentioning it everytime his action's are questioned, but if I was a cowardly limey nancy boy who said it in every other sentence that would be ok, because as long as you're on their side of the atlantic ocean or political aisle profanity is not uncivil.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gun politics in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Spitzer (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) 08:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

You made a series of nine big edits on the GPUS article. Some of them I liked, some of them I have no strong opinion about one way or another, some I disagree with. Some of your edit summaries were complete and accurate; some were not. I am going to make a series of edits, too. Just a heads up, and let's take it easy with each other on any edit summaries or talk-page comments, OK? Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Works for me... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

Could you please explain your most resent revert at Gun politics in the United States‎‎ at the talk page there. As mentioned at the policy you pointed too isn't about establishing notability for people who are sourced, it is about establishing notability for articles. Notice, your at your third revert. Thenub314 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Between you and Lightbreather, I'm not sure who made the edit, but the material was removed because the notability of the people making the editorial statements was not established. None of them have WP articles, so they are not WP:NOTABLE (or WP:PEOPLE if you prefer) in that regard. Listing a bunch of names and then saying effectively "these random people agree on this, so it must be true" does not work on Misplaced Pages. Are any of them worthy of articles on their own? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You have your policy mixed up. See WP:Reliable Sources for a guideline as to which sources should be used for citation. WP:NOTABLE is just not at issue. These are Books and Journal Articles referencing the effects of various events on the gun politics in the US, how are they no appropriate? Do you mean to tell me if I check back at ever reference you've added, the author's will all have a WP page, and if they don't I am free to remove the insufficiently referenced material? Thenub314 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop deleting this sourced material from the GPUS article. (This is the diff: , with edit summary, "Switching to non-controversial source and removing redundant content again per WP:MOS")

First, I disagree that OpenSecrets.org is controversial. Second, even if it were (for argument's sake), there is no policy that says controversial sources cannot be used. Third, the material you keep replacing this with is sourced with an OK source, but it pre-dates Super PACs. Fourth, your preferred source is included with the one you don't like in the material you keep deleting (in case you didn't notice). And fifth - I explained all of this in the GPUS discussion of just one month ago Presenting OpenSecrets.org figures - and the material stayed. Please add something if you think it will improve the article, but deleting this material does not improve the article, so please stop. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Disagree all you want, others have commented that its editorial material is suspect. 2) Yes there is and there is policy that gives preference to established and especially print sources. 3) I've deleting redundant material that is meant to be supplemented by Wikilinks and their related articles. Please stop "dumbing down" the article. 4) The source is fine for factual material, you should be happy I'm using it at all. 5) Your explanation does not override policy or consensus of which there was no consensus and the lack of it does not justify your edits. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I disagree that OpenSecrets is a "controversial" source (though some, like the NRA, might call it biased), but could you please provide the 1. The policy that says controversial (or biased) sources cannot be used, and 2. The policy that gives preference to print sources? Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Assault weapons ban article's name

Re renaming Assault weapons ban as "Assault weapons legislation": WP:V, WP:RS and the majority of the general populace call them assault weapons bans. Please start a discussion on that article's talk page, with sources supporting the change, if you want to consider changing its name. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you worry or even consider how much evidence you're piling up against yourself for a case of WP:OWNERSHIP to be made for a myriad of articles? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Those in glass houses... Thenub314 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'm not the one who has authored most of these articles nor am I trying to accomplish anything other than an adherence to policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ownership? No. WP:STEWARDSHIP? Yes. Also, you might want to review Examples of ownership behavior. ... What I'm seeing in regards to this topic - and have seen for some months - is a push by a number of editors who don't seem to want to acknowledge to Misplaced Pages readers that there are in-force assault weapons bans, or that there ever was any assault weapons ban except for the federal ban that expired 10 years ago. Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User Sue Rangell was the first that I am aware of to make the statement and I've seen others do so in regard to your recent editing. I happen to share that opinion. I'm not really interested in wasting time putting together the difs and evidence to report it.

As for your observation, that's an entirely different situation. Its one thing to have an opinion or to edit with a purpose, but outright stating a bias or a POV is never a good thing unless you're trying to be sanctioned. It has happened previously, you wouldn't be the first. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple really: If you don't want to be bothered with providing diffs, keep your comments on content and not on character. You might want to read WP:WIAPA. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean like here and your above statement. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "like here." Another editor started that discussion, about me, on an article talk page. I did reply to that, there. When I wanted to talk about your behavior, I came here, to your talk page. It was between me and you. As for ownership, no-one owns that article, but you have unilaterally moved and renamed it without discussion against WP:MOVE, and despite having an open Requested move process underway, continue to edit as if the process is completed and decided in your preferred way. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Assault weapons ban shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

To quote you from Mike's page, Hey Pot, how's its going? From, the Kettle. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: I believe that you're quoting Mike from my page: Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

A completely agnostic policy elucidation, unrelated to any article or topic

A completely agnostic policy elucidation, unrelated to any article or topic, may be of interest to you

Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought... thanks! Admittedly, I do tend to forget about the suggestion of annotations. That could probably prevent quite a bit of angst. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, considering that Scal is edit warring with me and at least one other editor (refer, for instance, to the previous six discussions here) on the Gun politics in the U.S. article and the Assault weapons ban article - which he has unilaterally moved/renamed to/as "Assault weapons legislation" - why are you advising him on policy that is directly to-do with some of the reverts and the move/rename he did today. This may be OK by the letter of your topic ban, but I can't see how it's OK within the spirit of the ban. Lightbreather (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33

Hi Callanecc, thank you for the message, but I was already aware of it and had mentioned it in the ANI. The 3rd User involved in the activity, Lightbreather, is the one who most importantly needs to be reminded of this. Its in response predominantly to her edits and actions that I've made many of my edits. Also, what was resolved or discussed in any productive way in ANI? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

I have asked for clarification re: Gaijin42's topic ban here: "https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control.23Gaijin42_.28topic_banned.29"

The request is to-do with a discussion he posted here on your talk page yesterday. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping

With all that has been going on I didn't know if you saw the questions I asked here. But since I was hoping to resolve our dispute over what sources were acceptable, I thought I would point it out explicitly. Thenub314 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I missed that. Thank you for the heads up. That's going to take some time to respond and I'll have to get to it when I have more time to respond. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood, I will be patient. Thenub314 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's always appreciated... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, where were we... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We were in a disagreement about what sort of sources were acceptable. You said that one criteria was if an author was Notable and had their own WP page. You suggested perhaps other criteria could be used and I was wondering what other criteria were acceptable to you, so I could find choose references on which we both agreed were appropriate instead of just arguing about it each time I added something. Thenub314 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

:) I remember, that was just my way of announcing that I was working on a reply, but thank you for the synopsis... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
433	Wicked Pictures (talk)	Add sources
337	Lissajous curve (talk)	Add sources
663	Pornography by region (talk)	Add sources
76	Holly Sweet (talk)	Add sources
1,796	Dog with a Blog (talk)	Add sources
36	KSEX (talk)	Add sources
543	Pierre Woodman (talk)	Cleanup
94	Anti-rape movement (talk)	Cleanup
68	Freedom of speech in Canada (talk)	Cleanup
7	El Dorado High School (Placerville, California) (talk)	Expand
227	Firearm Owners Protection Act (talk)	Expand
484	Sexuality in Japan (talk)	Expand
935	Internet pornography (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,125	Sexual addiction (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
136	Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
158	Temporary foreign worker program in Canada (talk)	Merge
43	Small arms trade (talk)	Merge
250	Fetish model (talk)	Merge
328	Homosexuality and psychology (talk)	Wikify
681	Ilona Staller (talk)	Wikify
18,234	Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk)	Wikify
14	Angelo Marconi (talk)	Orphan
17	Operation Blue Orchid (talk)	Orphan
27	Women's Pornography (talk)	Orphan
15	High-capacity magazine (talk)	Stub
538	Lela Star (talk)	Stub
26	Intruders (2013 film) (talk)	Stub
14	Man of the Forest (talk)	Stub
121	Rene Bond (talk)	Stub
17	Bill Price (record producer) (talk)	Stub

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion about copyright

I am a bit rusty at these things, but I wanted to make a suggestion to you. It looked like you copy and pasted some text in this edit. Technically speaking, that is only acceptable with WP copyright if you provide attribution to the authors by giving at least a link where the author's names can be found. In the edit above there was a link to the main article so all is good. But at WB we recommend put something like "Copying from ]" in the edit summary. Just something to think about. Thenub314 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good idea, thanks. What does LB think of it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No idea. It may not even be standard operating WP procedure. One of the side affects of bouncing around lots of different WM projects is that I occasionally mix up local policies/procedures. I am sure you could ask him though.Thenub314 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean "she", Lightbreather is female. You're better off asking her than me, I consider even collegial communication with her a lucky occurrence and not the norm. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider a self revert?

Look, I am trying hard to work with you and find sources we both agree are reliable. When you took this out, you may not have noticed that one of the people being sourced was Chip Berlet. He has achieved enough recognition to have his own wikipedia page. He was reviewing 4 books, from various political points of view, for a respected academic journal. He stated that all four books agreed on this point that was in the article. The books would be primary sources, he would be a secondary source because he is summarizing them, and he is an expert in the field and would point out if he felt this was a factually incorrect point. This has to tick all the WP:RS boxes. Thenub314 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit comes across as over zealous, but that content has numerous problems. First, its mixing issues out of context via the commonality of the 1994 AWB. The paragraph starts with content about a criminal act and the illegal use of firearms by a mentally ill person. Then it leaps over to the militia movement citing two government debacles. How these incidents could be put in the same paragraph confounds me as anything other than what I have come to understand as the tactics of the extremist gun control (gun banning) movement. Its one of the sneakiest forms of WP:SYNTH I've seen.

Does the content have a place in the article, probably, but not in that paragraph. What part of the content would you like to keep? I'm happy to work with you to figure out good placement for it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The only opinion I zealously hold is that 0.999...=1. If placement is the issue, then let's address placement. I do not intend to imply anything good or bad about the militia movement, but it really picked up steam at some point, and many people have wondered why. The new legislation about gun control followed by some royal government screw ups where people died (with gun issues being an important factor)... it is almost a no brainer. But it is important, and should be included and sourced. I meant no subtle implication of mental instability. Thenub314 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR

I doubt it's necessary, but consider this a friendly neighbourhood 3RR notice for Gun politics in the United States. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Nomoskedasticity, I consider it a taunt or a dare on your behalf. After an editor with a stated bias toward this subject matter reverted the removal of the text for policy based reasons, you then placed this notice on my page. Lightbreather has a history of activity of stacking Users in her favor and bringing in other Users to support her causes. I really hate digging into someones WP history, but you've put yourself into the fray. Have you checked Lightbreathers edit history? Its enlightening in many ways. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, please join in the discussion that we are having in the section above, it concerns this specific text... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I came here to 3RR warn you and found this. "Lightbreather has a history of activity of stacking Users in her favor and bringing in other Users to support her causes." Per WP:WIAPA, "Serious accusations require serious evidence." I'd like you to retract that statement, and I'm asking you again for I've-lost-count-of-how-many times to STOP saying things about me without notifying me so that I may defend myself. Lightbreather (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, prior to reviewing today's history on the GPUS article, I'd never heard of Nomoskedasticity before. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. —Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Jade Fairbrother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to All Access

Shae Marks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Black Scorpion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your olive branch, and raise you a dove

Lightbreather (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you, and yes, a Mother's Day greeting is appropriate. I was not aware of these templates, but your post prompted me to go look for more, so I thank you for that. I am happy to resume peaceful, WP:CIVIL relations. --Lightbreather (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you, I look forward to the peace as well... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
719	Overview of gun laws by nation (talk)	Add sources
217	Wayne LaPierre (talk)	Add sources
307	Gun safety (talk)	Add sources
439	Gun law in the United States (talk)	Add sources
316	Liberalism in the United States (talk)	Add sources
768	Carbine (talk)	Add sources
329	Combat shotgun (talk)	Cleanup
3,402	Bryan Singer (talk)	Cleanup
219	Caseless ammunition (talk)	Cleanup
1,831	Joan Jett (talk)	Expand
506	Gun politics in the United Kingdom (talk)	Expand
952	District of Columbia v. Heller (talk)	Expand
4,657	2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
229	Auditing (Scientology) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
348	Machine pistol (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
140	Automatic firearm (talk)	Merge
22	Reception statute (talk)	Merge
393	Service rifle (talk)	Merge
1,407	Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album) (talk)	Wikify
471	MAC-10 (talk)	Wikify
1,218	Racism in the United States (talk)	Wikify
3	LAPA CM-02 (talk)	Orphan
204	IsiBaya (talk)	Orphan
17	FMK 9C1 (talk)	Orphan
2,166	Riley Reid (talk)	Stub
32	Ruger 96 (talk)	Stub
23	Bayonet lug (talk)	Stub
103	Operation Choke Point (talk)	Stub
4	A. M. Barrows Elementary School (talk)	Stub
2,076	Bonnie Rotten (talk)	Stub

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A favor, maybe

Since we seem to have forged something of an understanding, would you mind editing or striking some of these comments? It would be appreciated. Lightbreather (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So I took a look at each one and the first question I have is why? What would it accomplish? Given that nothing is ever completely erased from Misplaced Pages, this could be perceived as an odd move on my part because 1) you've made this request and 2) there are more than a few Editors make accusations of collusion or "teaming up" to push a POV or other agenda based on something like this.

In regard to the last item , this is part of the record of an ArbCom proceeding. Even if an edit or strike is permissible, I am not in favor of changes like this. If I expect others to be judged on their behavior as indicated by the WP records, then I must stand up to the same scrutiny. I've had what I consider far worse said about and to me by other (often very Senior) Editors and Admins. I've also had Editors and Admins come to my defense because of my comments and history of edits and actions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it would be a nice thing to do, Scal. You made personal comments on an article talk page and the others were accusations without diffs. Although we "made up" (so to speak), those things are still floating around for other editors to read - and possibly think the less of me for having read them. I'm not gonna twist your arm, but a little redaction would demonstrate good faith, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting approach. You start with an emotional appeal and then start citing WP policy followed by guidelines for your proposed redaction and a request to demonstrate good faith. But I've already demonstrated good faith. I was the one that reached out to you with the Olive branch, which you thanked me for, and I am making the effort to understand your viewpoints so that we can work together. Yet, you want more my part and as far as I am aware, I have not seen any reciprocity on your part.

As for what others see, it never goes away. None of your appearances in ANI or any other formal process ever disappears from scrutiny except by primarily the new and/or un-experienced Users who do not know how to find it.

But in the spirit of compromise, I am willing edit this entry. Since it is part of a closed RfC, I have asked Number 57, who closed it, if this is permissible. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal, it was a simple request, but you asked "why," so I gave some policy reasons, which is (I think) what most editors are looking for when they ask "why." When I read old talk pages and I see someone's comments redacted, I know that he/she changed his/her mind about what he/she wrote. As I said, I'm not going to twist your arm. If you don't want to do it - don't. I just think it would have been a nice thing to do. But if you still want that stuff floating around out there unredacted, more power to ya. I'm not going to ask why. Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I just agree with your request? I intend to make a change, but I'm not willing to violate policy at your request so I asked for clarification from the Admin involved. And I agree that it's a nice thing to do, but as the policy that you linked to also says, changes should not be made when it might affect the subsequent context of the discussion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. All I see there is "But in the spirit of compromise, I am willing edit this entry," with a link to one item. It seemed you were willing to redact those personal comments in that one item, which would be nice, but the others are the accusations without diffs, and those are more (potentially) damaging. Lightbreather (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, accepted... :) Interesting though, from my perspective (granted I know what I was thinking when I made the comments) I view it completely opposite. The other comments (especially the ones without difs) are personal opinions and likely in my experience to be completely dismissed by other Editors. If someone wants to build a case against you, they look to your direct actions/edits, not the opinion of others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(imagine we're having a beer and I give you an elbow in your side) Then you won't mind if I start peppering my comments with, "Scal, you have ownership issues," and "That Scal canvasses and vote stacks," - right? ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, heck no. I'm way thicker skinned than that... :) The thing that I try to remember is that if one person says something less than positive, its fairly easy to write it off as a "rant" (unless its backed with numbers), or, possibly something as simple as someone "having a bad day" that coincided with my edit, or, I just completely misinterpreting their comment (what they "wrote" versus what they "meant"). I've learned that responding to it often just makes it worse, all some people need to pursue an issue, is acknowledgement. In fact, sometimes its best to wait a bit and see if someone else responds first to criticism, not just in my defense, but with another relevant point or fact, something I had not considered. Nub has done this on your behalf and as long as his points are well made and logical, its great support for your stance. Of course if a known WikiNut backs you, it can backfire as well. My point is, just because someone says something that you feel is directed at you, don't ever feel that you must respond.

On the other hand, if multiple people say that same thing (or close) and its across several articles (especially if they are topic related), then I interpret that as a really good opportunity to do a self review and try to look at the situation from other perspectives. The WP User community chews up and spits out new editors on a regular basis regardless of "Don't bite the newbies" and such. Wait long enough and circumstances can totally change. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Re your edit summary at Talk:Gun control

If you have something to say, use the proper channels - though why anyone would take the post of a semi-literate self-declared 'American historian' seriously I have no idea. Someone's sock more than likely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea and its not something I intend to speculate about either. I just thoroughly enjoy your antics... :) I've likened you to a teacher I had in high school many years ago. His name was brother Alfred and he was part of the Brothers of the Holy Cross order here in Northern California. I have never personally encountered a clergy person who was more despised (even by the schools administrators) for his outspoken opinions regarding the school itself and the Catholic church in general. Yet he was also very well respected by a small group of people who took the time to understand the motives behind his antics. I learned over the years that sometimes he did go too far and was forced to apologize or "be retired" from teaching which he begrudgingly did, but it never stopped him. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Gun control :Gaijin42)

An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning about Lightbreather

I have thouroughly investigated the complaint lightbreather made against you. I have noticed that she has done this regularly recently to other gun issue editors. My conclusion she is likely gaming the system to maintain ownership and to throw NPOV out the window. Be very cautious when she asks you to do something as it may be used against you by her or a set up. I have commented on the original complaint. I have no pull as your Wikibigotry article illuminates due to being an IP but have attempted to promote some fairness here. Hopefully some unbiased admin will look over Lightbreather very closely and set her straight. I also investigated you as well. I found out from above you like to collect old panel vans. We had one on the farm for storage that was I believe a 57' Metro and yellow. Unfortunately it is long gone. Why collect cab over vans? I have a 73' Super C20Cheyenne with a built 454 and 4.10 rear end. However it is quite heavy with a 1 ton rear. Also owned a 4X4 Burb with 383 stroker with roller rockers and roller cam. It was a bat out of hell for a lifted Mudder with 35's but I gave it to my brother in law who desparately needed wheels for his young family (he was the baby and my wife was 12 years older and well I was nearly 20 years older than him). I also had 2 older BMW's and a 67' 912 but got out of the expensive toy game. You may want to consider a different Wiki handle because everything is out there but you must know that and do not care but I thought it prudent to let you know. Well nice meeting you (sounds better than investigated). 208.54.35.173 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

I got tired of false accusations and bullying of editors by Lightbreather so after attacking me I opened an Arbcom which was related to the accusations Lightbreather made against you. I do understand if you want to lay low as she stated you have made up to which I responded was switching tactics when her attempt to silence you failed. I am posting so you are aware of the situation at Arbcom. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer questions assuming that this is not some sort of "witch hunt". Otherwise, I'm not sure how to respond to this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)