Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cuchullain (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 5 November 2015 (→Edit warring at Depression Quest: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• /Archive 1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive 2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive 3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive 4 Created November 19, 2006
• /Archive 5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• /Archive 11 created --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 12 created --DHeyward (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 13
• /Archive 14
• /Archive 15
• /Archive 16
• /Archive 17

Please add comments to the bottom

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DHeyward (talk)

Details about weapons used in crimes and mass killings

Hey. I just noticed this discussion you started:

• Expand BLP policy around coverage of mass shootings?

Fascinating! It is tangentially related to a discussion here:

• Providing a weapons list without excessive detail (noise)

This got me thinking about effecting a policy change regarding how we deal with the nitty gritty details about weapons used in crimes and mass killings. I wrote:

The number and general type (handgun, single action or semi-auto, rifle, shotgun) are relevant, but the exact model isn't always significant, and just serves to glorify the brand, which only feeds the perverse curiosity of copycat killers, ammophiliacs, and ammosexuals.

Since this subject will repeatedly come up in the future, and already applies to a number of articles, I would like to see a policy about how to deal with the level of detail for weapons used in mass killings. We must cover the subject, but it is undue weight to wallow in the nitty gritty details of the exact brand and model. The references can serve that purpose. Misplaced Pages should seek to de-emphasize such detail, as an act of solidarity with the cause of anti-violence. We shouldn't even begin to do anything which benefits violence.

What do you think? Is there any merit in this? How can we do this? Where would be the best place to start an RfC (or whatever) to make this a policy? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's a "shooting" then the thing that was shot is relevant. It's not a matter of weight, since only a few words or characters are involved. If the exact models of guns are unimportant than why does WP have so many articles on guns? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:3C44:E8A5:26B1:DBC8 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's two different subjects. An article about a gun should go into great detail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in general. There's nothing inherently lethal or useful about a particular model. caliber is important. action is important but "semi-automatic pistol" is generally the same thing regardless of brand. We'd also have to avoid poliyical terms like "assault rifle." The village pump is where I started a discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY on transgender individuals in articles about themselves and in passing in other articles

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Misplaced Pages's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your great input at UCC shooting/talk. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:51, 14 October 2015 (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. Samsara 19:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the beer getting deleted - that was not intentional. Samsara 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Gone

I'm leaving the Clock Boy incident article. In short, I'm doing so because I'm sick of contributing good edits that just get reverted or obliterated; I'm sick of the snide edit summaries left after those competing edits are made. I'm sick of the article ownership. I left my final word there at the talk page here. You, I've enjoyed editing with. The other regulars, not at all. See you elsewhere, I'm sure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy on living persons at Talk:Cecil (lion)

I've posted about an issue here in which you are involved. Samsara 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hi DHeyward,

Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.

For the Arbitration Comittee. Amortias (T)(C) 12:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Depression Quest

Please stop edit warring at Depression Quest. As the one introducing challenged material, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it on the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)