Misplaced Pages

User talk:Scalhotrod: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:12, 3 March 2015 view sourceCullen328 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,569 edits →Gun politics task force (GPTF): better wikilink← Previous edit Revision as of 16:49, 3 March 2015 view source Lightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Gun politics task force (GPTF): Reply to Cullen328.Next edit →
Line 390: Line 390:


This sounds like an interesting idea. Would I be able to join/apply? ] (]) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC) This sounds like an interesting idea. Would I be able to join/apply? ] (]) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

::Doesn't the ] of the Constitutution of the United States guarantee a right to "keep and bear arms", {{U|Lightbreather}}? And haven't the highest courts of the United States consistently interpreted that as an individual right? Everyone knows that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to other countries, but that certainly does not means that editors who understand and appreciate the Bill of Rights in the U.S. are incapable of editing articles about gun rights in other countries. I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. Do you? ] ] 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC) :Doesn't the ] of the Constitutution of the United States guarantee a right to "keep and bear arms", {{U|Lightbreather}}? And haven't the highest courts of the United States consistently interpreted that as an individual right? Everyone knows that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to other countries, but that certainly does not means that editors who understand and appreciate the Bill of Rights in the U.S. are incapable of editing articles about gun rights in other countries. I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. Do you? ] ] 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

::''I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years.'' I cannot believe that you're questioning my patriotism. I proudly helped my dad get his ] membership. My oldest son was in the HHC, 1st Batallion of ]. He helped to honor many veterans buried at Arlington. He fired salutes at one of Bush's inaugurations. My heart still pounds to remember being at the ] on July 4, 2000, as those guns fired to the 1812 Overture. He later served in Iraq, was nearly blown up by an IED, and came home - to my home - with PTSD. I'll thank you to never again question my love of country and what my family has sacrificed for her.

::As for your lecture on the Second Amendment: Yes, the highest court ruled - in a split decision - that it gives individuals a right to own arms. But even uber-conservative Scalia, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote:
:::''Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.''
::But you'll rarely find the Misplaced Pages pro-gun crowd cramming that into the lead of gun-related articles. If you went by the lead in the many articles they've loaded with their RKBA BS, you'd think every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has the right to roll down the street in a tank with a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. Further, in the first section of these articles' bodies, you'll find quotes by Aristotle, Cicero, and Locke making it sound like every human on the planet has the right - perhaps even the duty - to be armed to the teeth. They might even go so far as to say (or to hint) that God himself wants all his children to be packing.

::So, to reiterate what I've said before. My father owns guns. My brothers and oldest son own guns. My grandfathers owned guns. I've been taught to handle guns myself. I support the Second... but I believe the minority had it right in ''Heller'' (as do many), and even if I didn't, the majority in that decision made it clear that "well regulated" still means something. And my work on Misplaced Pages, when it comes to gun related articles, is to make sure that 2A arguments are not given ] weight, ''including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.'' Anyone who thinks I'm trying to do anything else should consider an appropriate DR process, or keep their opinions to themselves.

::Now, I'm taking this talk page off my watchlist. I hope I don't get pinged again, as Scalhotrod and I are trying to give each other a break. ] (]) 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==

Revision as of 16:49, 3 March 2015

Scalhotrod is Somewhere

User:Scalhotrod User talk:Scalhotrod Special:Contributions/Scalhotrod Special:Emailuser/Scalhotrod User:Scalhotrod/Articles User:Scalhotrod/WikiProjects User:Scalhotrod/Wikipedia Bookmarks User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox
User Talk Contributions eMail Articles WikiProjects Bookmarks My Sandbox


“ Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it. ”
— George Bernard Shaw
“ No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. ”
— Eleanor Roosevelt
  • "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
  • These days I'm mostly sticking to work on Sandbox ideas and articles as well as patrolling the Pending Edits list page.


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

This page has archives. Sections older than 33 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 33 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Playboy Playmates of 2014, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maxim, Stylist and St. Augustine High School (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) 09:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning removal of unsourced content

Unfortunately, the edit summary here shows a misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policy. I removed unsourced content, and stated in my edit summary that lack of sources was one of the reasons for the removal. Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." Since you have made a mistake about that policy, and restored unsourced content without providing any citation to any source, reliable or otherwise, can you please self-revert? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey JamesBWatson, I understood your intention, but the volume of the material you removed is the primary issue. In recent months, bans and blocks have been handed out at WP:ANI for unilateral actions such as this without any discussion. This has applied to WP:BLP articles as well, even the strict nature of that policy was not justification for removal of significant amounts of content.
That said, the preference is to discuss your concerns on the Talk page or bring it to the attention of the members of the related Project. To facilitate the process of cleaning up the article and adding appropriate references, I have started a discussion on the Talk page. I do not see your name listed on the Pornography Project, so you may not have known that we routinely discuss topics like this especially in the wake of similar edits made by now banned or blocked Editors.
If you are willing to help improve the article by adding references, I encourage you to do so. If you are not, then I ask that you give me time to work on the article as well as enlist assistance from other Project members. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you give me examples of editors who have been blocked or banned for removal of large quantities of unsourced content? In view of the fact that such removal is in line with policy, I would find such a block or ban remarkable.
Editors are, of course, free to form themselves into groups called "projects" on subjects in which they have an interest, but doing so does not give them the ability or right to over-ride policy, nor does it give them any more authority over article content than any other editors. I repeat once more that Misplaced Pages policy forbids the restoration of unsourced content which has been removed without providing reliable sources, and I therefore ask you once again to self-revert. Having done so, you are of course perfectly free to try to find reliable sources for some or all of the content, but unless and until you do so you must not restore the removed content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
@JamesBWatson: I assure you, I'm not trying to override or usurp policy, but rather prevent any unwarranted attention or protracted debate over a recent "hot topic" issue. The most recent example that I can provide is for that of User SqueakBox who is currently under a Topic banfor all pornography related articles. This was the result of a prolonged series of deletions across numerous porn related and BLP articles combined with a refusal to admit any fault or a willingness to change their behavior. I personally found the outcome unfortunate, as I considered the User a fairly diligent Editor.
My apology if I came across as somewhat alarmist, but your edit was nearly identical to several of Squeakbox's early edits being that it was substantial (roughly 40% of the article) and was not preceeded (at least that I could find) with any communication on the Talk page for the article or the Project.
For the record, I agree with you that Projects do not and should not override Policy, but the active participants do typically have a deeper and more contextually relevant understanding of recent events with regard to the subject matter of the Project. I find this to be especially true of the Film, LGBT, and similar Projects where content changes rapidly and norms for how this content are handled have evolved. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan rename

Just wanted to let you know. Despite the rename proposal going through with a 100% consensus, editor RightCowLeftCoast has jumped in again within a day of the discussion being closed and the article renamed and has requested the article name be returned to before and plus merge the 2015-present article into the 2001 one. Your arguments and opinion from before would be appreciated once again at the talk page. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Beware the 1RR

Gamergate is under 1RR in case you're not aware. Personally I'd count that first revert as probably under BLP, but I just wanted to make sure you're aware in case someone tries to make a big deal out of it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It came up for review on the Special:PendingChanges list. I simply responded to the Edit Summary left by the Editor that changed it. I read the Talk page afterwards and saw all of the warnings. I made some suggestions as well. If its such a problem, I'll just stay away. Thanks for letting me know. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. Just saw the second revert and thought I should just give you a heads up. I don't mean to chase you away! — Strongjam (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Hello, Scalhotrod. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone!

Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Misplaced Pages and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Polyamoury

Have you actually looked at the sources. The sources that are mentioned at first, the whole list of things. have nothing to do with the subject line or the line that is being sad. I suggest you read the whole talk page discussion, including looking at the debunking of all the sources being reliable. There are only two reliable sources. The rest are blogs. And one paper that has nothing to do with the subject. Secondly its about Polygamy Hence why the source that remained in the end. Is on the polygamy place. Please before reverting me again. Read the whole talk page, and actually look at the sources that were used to do the pov pushing. NathanWubs (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies to you NathanWubs. I'm so used to seeing wholesale deletion like this, that I forget to review the Talk page first. Personally, I'm glad that the content is gone especially if its so poorly sourced and POV. The way it read, it looked credible, but I see your points. Thank you for taking the time to explain it and again my apologies for mucking up a consensus based edit. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, its not problem its an honest mistake. NathanWubs (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
NathanWubs, and thank you again for understanding! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What ifs

Hi, Scalhotrod. I'm here because of the notations in these two diffs & . Please clarify what you mean by them. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the Edit Summaries, so...
"What ifs" just refers to hypothetical situations or scenarios. It's also a type of statement used in code for logical statements in programming, so maybe that how it came into my personal vernacular.
"OK and...?" was just an inquiry as to the reason for your posting. You posted what seemed like content you are suggesting for the article with a source, but I did not understand the reason or context for what you posted. By the way, Lightbreather used to get particularly upset when I used the stock Edit summaries (i.e. "Cleanup", etc.) or anything generic, so I have been making the effort to actually say something. My apologies if they come across as cryptic or just not terribly straightforward. Anything else... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It is possible this may just have been a misunderstanding. However, I have now expressed to you that "the tone" in which these "Edit Summeries" (thanks for the correction) were presented can easily be construed as somewhat UNCIVIL. I suggest that moving forward, if you are replying to me or one of my posts or comments, just put "reply DN" in the edit summary. That way we can avoid any future misunderstandings. The Edit Summaries are just as meaningful as the comments on the TP. Sorry for the bother, and thanks for your time. Darknipples (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, I don't typically consider the "tone" as if someone were speaking since its written communication, good suggestion nonetheless. No worries... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but I should clarify with you that while you have explained what these edit summaries "represent", I am still without an explanation as to what you "meant" by them. At this point it's not necessary unless you feel inclined to do so on my TP, otherwise, I will bid you a good-evening. Darknipples (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey DN, no worries and I'm sorry if this comes across as being somewhat dense, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between "represent" and "mean". Aside from what I explained above, there was no other intended communication. I wasn't trying to be cryptic or passive aggressive in any way and I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but it wasn't intended nor was it meant to be inferred. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that other editors active on that page have consistently adopted an uncivil tone in a wide variety of venues. Including your most highly visible ally, Darknipples. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ally? Cullen328, you're joking or being sarcastic, right? DN and I are trying to work through the context of a complicated issue while attempting to impress upon others, LB, ME, et. al., that's its not as "cut and dry" as the media tries to portray it. Just the fact that we're all so confused about it is evidence that the media consistently gets it wrong.
That said, if other Editors want to be uncivil or have a "tone", that's fine for them, but I don't go looking for it or assume its intended with every comment I read. I still fail to understand why we all can't just write an article ABOUT a subject and not have to DEBATE IT within the article or on the Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I was neither joking nor being sarcastic, but you make some good points. I don't like it when some editors make little digs all the time. Sometimes it is tough to figure out who is allied with whom. As for the arguments, they will inevitably occur on talk pages of articles about controversial topics, which is OK as long as the argument/debate is about how to improve the article. Arguing within any article is always unacceptable. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the "digs" can get to me especially on a "bad day", but I do my best to overlook them and just see them as "character attributes". Heck, sometimes I get my best laugh of the day from some of these "digs" when they are made towards me...! :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I appreciate the discourse via our talk pages. Cheers to that. Darknipples (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor

I think this has been hashed and rehashed enough. SC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Kinda makes sense to comment in this same section, so… hi. You seem to have misinterpreted my original response—meant as a gentle reminder to include some substance in an argument—as an attack on you as a person rather than a criticism of your post. I honestly have no idea how this happened, so I’d like to apologize for the misunderstanding, and also to ask you to tell me what gave that impression so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

174.141.182.82, well for starters not saying anything in response to my Vote would have eliminated the possibility of any impression, WP:NPA or otherwise. That fact that another User made the same comment and you DID NOT comment made it seem more directed towards ME personally, than a general comment by you.
For that matter, it's entirely within WP policy for me to change, augment, delete, or strikethrough my own comment. It's not up to you to highlight anything in my remarks, if you want to quote them and then add your own emphasis, sobeit. Had you not commented here, I would have just left a Talk page template like {{:subst:uw-tpv2}}. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That addition changed the entire context and meaning of my reply after I had made it, so, I respectfully disagree. Please review WP:REDACT (and especially please review relevant project pages before you consider posting template warnings to other users). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, why would I have targeted you personally, when as far as I’m aware we’d never interacted before? Forgive me if the following seems like a personal attack, but it seems to me like perhaps you’re just a bit oversensitive to such things. Criticisms of your works or your reasoning are not criticisms of you.—174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you did not intend your comment as a personal attack nor did I take it as one, but people make stupid comments on WP all the time. I'm just trying to point out how your actions can be interpreted by others. You're still a fairly new Editor (7 months?), so I'm more than willing to WP:AGF and give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that you've already perceptually overstepped your bounds since you've been brought to WP:ANI. Being an IP Editor versus having an account doesn't help your situation either. There is a site-wide bias against conscientious IP Editors. If you're WP:HERE to build, it would be a good idea to register, it also provides you with a degree of anonymity since pretty much anyone can trace your IP address.
As for changing anyone comments unilaterally without any prior communication (such as asking permission or asking me to change it back) when its not a blatant personal attack or similar instance is NEVER a good idea regardless of your interpretation of policy. By the way, WP:REDACT only applies when en Editor is changing their own comment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
“By the way, WP:REDACT only applies when en Editor is changing their own comment.” Which is the thing you did after getting a reply, which is the reason I brought it up. I do apologize for taking it upon myself to mark up your late insertion, but I hope you understand that I only did so because your actions would have caused mine to be misinterpreted by anyone who would have read it without checking the edit history (so in a way, you changed my comment first). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, no need to keep rehashing this... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PC: Adrien Broner

Apologies for the hiccup. I originally accepted the recent change (today), but then restored it back to pending after I looked at your reverts within a few days/hours. DivineAlpha (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, things like this seem to happen to the Special:PendingChanges list items all the time. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS and single-sentence paragraphs

I can't find anything in WP:MOS about single-sentence paragraphs. There is no rule against single-sentence paragraphs, as far as I know, though they should not be used excessively. Lightbreather (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey LB, I had second thoughts after writing that as well and you're right. Its the WP:GOCE that strongly discourages single sentence paragraphs as part of their guidelines and standards, so its not policy. But a single sentence paragraph is not terribly in the spirit of WP:LEAD. Personally, I'd prefer if we left the political factions out of the lead altogether and just stick to describing the overall circumstances of the issue. The article does not include a lot about the standpoints as it is and with the common understanding we established, it's pretty clear that its a gaping hole in firearm regulation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

unsourced edits

do not restore unsourced info as you did at Kris Jenner, do not remove unsourced additions, but then the next day restore it. it goes both ways--Theamazo (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the basis is or is not for your stance, but obviously others (not just myself) disagree. At least I checked the SAG-AFTRA database, but apparently you did not even check the other uses of the Category here on WP. Please take it up on the Talk page and defend your stance there. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone!

Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Playboy Playmates of 2013, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maxim and Stoli (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) 09:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Marketing

Just want to make sure I don't misunderstand you with regard to your comment here. Were you seeing anything in your online research that shows the firearms industry is currently marketing some semiautomatic firearms as "assault weapons" to civilian customers? They don't actually advertise any models as "assault weapons" to their buyers, do they? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You ask a pertinent question, the basis for my comment was from a fairly broad perspective that includes manufacturers, dealers, advertisements, the media (as a whole), and its political uses. Granted, its prevalence by one group or another has changed over time, but for the most part its politicians currently that use the term. The media just repeats what politicians use in my opinion.
I just find that too often Editors want to focus an entire article on the "current status" or "interpretation" without concern for its historical context. The term was introduced into society and the media in 1985 by a politician and we should explain its use and application since. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gilliam, much appreciated for the grant, well wishes, and encouragement. I'll read up on its full explanation and application, but it looks like a useful tool, thanks again! Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scalhotrod. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech

Hello! Scalhotrod,

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: List of participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at project talkpage.
  5. Notify other editors you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- — Cirt (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

/does a happy dance

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:93.192.231.47  ;)

To answer your Q from a while back: I don't know if the issue had been printed. But some folks (not me) had gotten their hands on it. And as can be seen, Athanatophobos' PDS wasn't photoshopped. But what is there to say in a case like that? (That's not meant in a snarky way) People like Dismas will argue against it until they either have the issue in their own hands or it's being proclaimed on a site they trust. Mind, I understand that having sources is an absolute necessity for a encyclopedia. 93.192.228.150 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey 93.192.228.150, I get your point, but something I learned long ago on this site, "verifiability trumps the truth" every time. Pre-production or release examples exist of a great many things, but if we are going to use them as sourcing (especially web based) we have to take into consideration link rot. It's a minor issue, but once printed the issues will exist in perpetuity. We have this same problem in the movie and television articles when pre-production information gets leaked before release or airing and worse yet, changes. It's kind of hard for anyone (including the anti-porn crowd) to dispute a print issue in wide distribution... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Leonard Nimoy

The 2 edits I thanked you for (add Death subheading and move wikisource box) were exactly what I was about to do. ☮ 220 of 02:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on other Bio articles I've worked on, it made sense and was in keeping with article norms.

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol

Before resuming collaboration at Semi-automatic pistol, I'd like you to know that I did not appreciate these two edits or edit summaries:

  • 00:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: Please gain consensus or participate in Talk page discussion before adding this back, WP:BRD
  • 01:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) - edit summary: LB, please be reasonable... and comment in post: Please, I'm happy to start an RfC or ask for a 3rd party opinion or whatever, but please don't leave me any other choice but to seek the assistance of an Admin or a formal process.

On the first diff:

  • First off, you identify yourself as an inclusionist.
  • Second, you had never edited that article before I started editing it on 26 February 2015.
  • Third, among other edits, I added Assault weapon to that article's "See also" list (hardly a "bold" edit).
  • Fourth, less than three hours after I started editing the article, you showed up and performed one of your deceptive, content removing "Clean up" edits, removing what I'd added.
  • Third, after YOU reverted my addition - a second time - I started the discussion about it. (You should have started a discussion about it after your first revert.)
  • Fourth, I gave very convincing reasons why that item should stay. (1. Some semi-automatic pistols are considered assault pistols, and 2. WP:ALSO enables readers to explore tangentially related topics.)
  • Fifth, your reason is your opinion, based on no policy or guideline.

On the second diff? "Please be reasonable" is the same as saying "You're being unreasonable." It's just plain condescending and not AGF. Also, that's at least twice now since our topic ban ended that you've threatened me with "admin assistance." Your hands are not clean in this dispute.

I'm returning to that article now, and if you don't like "assault weapon" in the "See also" section, then yes, I think we should try WP:NPOVN or some other process. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey LB, from what I understand, you just had some kind of medical procedure and you just came off of a 24 hour block, so understandably you might not be in the best of spirits. None of this stuff is a "life or death" matter so let me know when you feel like discussing it again. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL projects

About this edit: . If you'll notice, the ones who added the projects were myself and an IP. (I actually created the article, along with Darknipples. Not that she or I own it, but it helps to understand it development, as well as the history of the talk page.) Further, most projects allow anyone to assess articles, based on whatever the project's assessment criteria is. And according to WP:GUNS, "Firearms related legislation, court cases, organizations, and competitive events" are of low importance. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine for now, the entire classification system needs to be re-addressed because it was intended for technical articles about firearms, not politics. So it doesn't really matter what is says for the time being. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Threading

Friendly suggestion: I don't know if you've always done this, or if you're just doing it lately, but I think it's something you should think about changing... or at least make use of Template:Outdent. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope your recovery is going well and that you feel better soon. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not recovering from anything. Montanabw is (or was). Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun politics task force (GPTF)

I see that you've proposed a gun politics task force (GPTF) on Rezin's talk page, and even started a new page for it under WP:GUNS. Considering that "firearms related legislation and court cases" are rated "Low" on WP:GUN's Importance scale, but politics are important at WP:POLITICS, I'd think a task force there (the politics project) would be a better idea, or as Rezin suggested, consider a joint task force.

Questions:

  • You're basing the GPTF on the gender gap task force. Do you think there is a gun-politics bias on Misplaced Pages?
  • Would this be a global gun politics task force, or a U.S. gun politics task force?
  • Would the task force have a position on international arms control? On domestic gun control? (For instance, would the task force enforce the view the gun control is arms control?)
  • Would the task force work to keep "politics" out of gun articles? (As you're currently doing at Firearms. And at Semi-automatic firarm, Semi-automatic pistol, Semi-automatic rifle, and Semi-automatic shotgun, where you've been removing Assault weapon from the See also section against WP:ALSO.)
  • Would the task force work to protect the "right to keep and bear arms" as a basic, civil, or god-given right as some gun rights advocates like to say? Would RKBA material be added to every gun/gun politics article?

I have to say I'm a bit concerned because you have professed on-wiki that you are pro gun and also that you'd like to be an admin someday. (And you broke our GC topic ban several times, most notably, here.) From a year - maybe more? - of working with you and seeing your work, I know that if you start a task force, it's likely to lean pro-gun. I think any outsider looking at the same situation might come to the same conclusion, and I'm pretty sure you would be alarmed if I started a GPTF.

I think if you really want to do this, you should start a discussion on the project page and invite other projects - especially WP:POLITICS and WP:LAW to join in. Lightbreather (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting idea. Would I be able to join/apply? Darknipples (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the Bill of Rights of the Constitutution of the United States guarantee a right to "keep and bear arms", Lightbreather? And haven't the highest courts of the United States consistently interpreted that as an individual right? Everyone knows that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to other countries, but that certainly does not means that editors who understand and appreciate the Bill of Rights in the U.S. are incapable of editing articles about gun rights in other countries. I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. Do you? Cullen Let's discuss it 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. I cannot believe that you're questioning my patriotism. I proudly helped my dad get his SAR membership. My oldest son was in the HHC, 1st Batallion of The Old Guard. He helped to honor many veterans buried at Arlington. He fired salutes at one of Bush's inaugurations. My heart still pounds to remember being at the National Mall on July 4, 2000, as those guns fired to the 1812 Overture. He later served in Iraq, was nearly blown up by an IED, and came home - to my home - with PTSD. I'll thank you to never again question my love of country and what my family has sacrificed for her.
As for your lecture on the Second Amendment: Yes, the highest court ruled - in a split decision - that it gives individuals a right to own arms. But even uber-conservative Scalia, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
But you'll rarely find the Misplaced Pages pro-gun crowd cramming that into the lead of gun-related articles. If you went by the lead in the many articles they've loaded with their RKBA BS, you'd think every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has the right to roll down the street in a tank with a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. Further, in the first section of these articles' bodies, you'll find quotes by Aristotle, Cicero, and Locke making it sound like every human on the planet has the right - perhaps even the duty - to be armed to the teeth. They might even go so far as to say (or to hint) that God himself wants all his children to be packing.
So, to reiterate what I've said before. My father owns guns. My brothers and oldest son own guns. My grandfathers owned guns. I've been taught to handle guns myself. I support the Second... but I believe the minority had it right in Heller (as do many), and even if I didn't, the majority in that decision made it clear that "well regulated" still means something. And my work on Misplaced Pages, when it comes to gun related articles, is to make sure that 2A arguments are not given WP:UNDUE weight, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Anyone who thinks I'm trying to do anything else should consider an appropriate DR process, or keep their opinions to themselves.
Now, I'm taking this talk page off my watchlist. I hope I don't get pinged again, as Scalhotrod and I are trying to give each other a break. Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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 get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
895 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Summer Rae (talk) Add sources
1,731 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Utopia (talk) Please add more sources Add sources
52 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start 700 (number) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Add sources
947 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Brain tumor (talk) Add sources
175 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Utrecht University (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Add sources
187 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: B 1925 (talk) Please add more sources Add sources
21 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The Courtship of Princess Leia (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Cleanup
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Type 80 (pistol) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Cleanup
172 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Philippine dance (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Cleanup
27 Quality: High, Assessed class: List, Predicted class: FA 1992 in the United States (talk) Please add more sources Expand
4,051 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Mark Ruffalo (talk) Expand
686 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Nielsen N.V. (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Expand
105 Quality: Low, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: Start Intermediate cartridge (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
262 Quality: Low, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: Start Machine pistol (talk) Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
105 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: GA Epiphone Les Paul (talk) Please add more content Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Modern sporting rifle (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Merge
158 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Beretta Cx4 Storm (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more sources Merge
43 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Small arms trade (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Merge
74 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Francesco Carrozzini (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Wikify
427 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: A MAC-10 (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Wikify
414 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Wash West (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Wikify
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub LAPA CM-02 (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub FEG AP9 (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Smith & Wesson Model 457 (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub FMK 9C1 (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
19 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Zastava P25 (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sos del Rey Católico (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more sources Stub
10 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Ott (name) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
47 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Danuvia VD-01 (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
60 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C MP-446 Viking (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)