Misplaced Pages

User talk:BilCat

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Henry Ingraham (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 9 June 2022 (→A brownie for you! (I just would like to say thanks): new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:53, 9 June 2022 by Henry Ingraham (talk | contribs) (→A brownie for you! (I just would like to say thanks): new WikiLove message)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Welcome to my user talk page
Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.

  • For matters related to article content, "use the article's talk page" (most likely on my watchlist), or use the relevant Wiki project talk page (use these for questions, requests for help or advice, etc). That's the intended purpose of these pages and will get more attention from others. Out of place posts may be removed or moved to a more appropriate talk page. Leave me a note pointing me to a discussion if necessary. Please use this page only for personal and general comments.
  • Keep conversations together - I will reply to posts on the talk page where the conversation starts.
  • Do not take changes to your edits personally. Note the warning on each edit screen: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I may revert unexplained (no edit summary) edits that appear unhelpful. To prevent this, provide edit summaries with understandable reason(s) to explain your intent or purpose.
  • Edits where cited text is changed may be reverted since that violates Misplaced Pages's WP:Verify policy. Please provide a reference with your changes.
  • Personal attacks will be removed. Unfair and improper criticism will be ignored or removed.
    Do your best to make your point without writing paragraphs and paragraphs of text. Excessively long posts will probably be ignored and removed to save space.
  • If your posts here are removed, please do not restore them for any reason.
  • Experienced editors are welcome to reply to posts here if they do so nicely.
  • Add posts to the relevant section or start a new section at the bottom. Thanks.


Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Stating fact is neutral

Please use the talk page of the article. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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.


I can not get more generic or factual than describing a firearm as an instrument designed to kill humans. This is the manufacturers intention, why it is manufactured, why it is purchased. A page devoted to an instrument should clarify its designed use and function. The omission of this detail is extremely biased. Here is the wiki page short intro for a HAMMER.

A hammer is a tool, most often a hand tool, consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object. This can be, for example, to drive nails into wood, to shape metal (as with a forge), or to crush rock. Hammers are used for a wide range of driving, shaping, breaking and non-destructive striking applications. Traditional disciplines include carpentry, blacksmithing, warfare, and percussive musicianship (as with a gong).


You will see the tool intro immediately defines the use of the tool. Drive nails into wood. crush rock. If I wrote that hammers are designed to kill humans, that would be incorrect. Hammers may be used to kill humans but that is not their designed purpose.

Guns, specifically combat firearms, not hunting rifles, have only one purpose and design. To kill humans. That is their designed purpose. They are not designed to shoot beer cans. Nor shoot paper. Nor deer. An Ar-15 style rifle is designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. That is the design purpose, it is advertised as a killing instrument. Omitting the designed purpose of a tool or instrument is extremely biased and not the neutral point of view you think it is. This is bias by omission. It renders the page suspiciously incomplete and my edit is not biased and is generic information that will help people understand what this firearm was designed for. It is not common knowledge that firearms are designed for killing humans. A wiki page should be written for the least informed, not the expert enthusiast.

I will return the essential detail of the firearm's intended use. Oggybleacher (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Oggybleacher: This clumsy apparent activism would need a citation to this effect in technical books about firearms and the history of the design of this one in particular, and to be phrased in an encyclopedic manner consistent with all other articles on weapons (originally) intended for military use. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I see the edit page is locked. I want to reach consensus on a minor edit but am not familiar with this kind of arbitration so bare with me.
This is the Wiki page tree of how I went from AR-15 to lethal instrument.
AR-15 >>>>>Semi-Automatic Rifle>>>>>>>>>>Self-Loading Rifle>>>>>Rifle>>>>>>>>>Firearm>>>>>>>>>Gun>>>>>>>Ranged--weapon>>>>>>>> Weapon>>>>>>>> ===inflict physical damage or harm.
So, that's 9 degrees of separation from physical harm....on a page for a weapon. 9 degrees of removal from its designed use scenario. I think this is not by accident, nor by oversight, nor because a weapon is ASSUMED to inflict physical damage. I think the wikipage has been sanitized by pro gun activists. It is sanitized because it looks better if the weapon is never called a weapon and is far removed from a weapon's utility. The page is currently being sanitized by pro-gun activists as is obvious by all the edits that have been removed. The page is not an unbiased description of this weapon. An unbiased description of this weapon would specifically say that it is a weapon. The page does not even say it is a weapon, let alone a lethal weapon. This goes suspiciously beyond an effort to be generic and unbiased. This is a biased and sanitized and intentionally incomplete description that requires 9 more levels of research to discover it is a lethal weapon. That's unacceptable by any scientific or research standard. The page for a Gun has no mention of its lethal potential? I read the Wiki page for GUN and have absolutely no idea what it is used for?
Every other tool page has a description of how the tool is used, what it was designed to do. The AR-15 has no designed purpose?? A tool with no designed purpose makes no sense. After 9 layers of research I discover it's a weapon. Weapons are designed to inflict physical damage or harm. But this important use is separated by 9 degrees from the page.
My goal is to remove all degrees of separation. This weapon is designed to inflict physical damage or harm. There should be zero degrees of separation from that design. That important detail should be on this page.
My edit in its entirety would read:
"The AR-15 is a potentially lethal weapon designed to inflict physical damage or harm"
I will reference the WIKI description for "Weapon" as my citation or any other description of weapons. Oggybleacher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
You need to ask on the the talk page of the article, and get others to agree with your changes there. However, you'll probably be wasting your time. Please don't post on my talk page about this again. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2022 (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.
Precious
Three years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Su-75

Thanks for pointing out that heading was not new. I thought that was a recent addition during the vandalism yesterday and it seemed like a magnet. I should have used more care; I apologize. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I could have handled the situation better myself. Anyway, thanks for being. vigilant and helping to protect the article from stupid memes! BilCat (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Looks like there's a backlog on RPP. We may need to ask one of the admins whiw.recently protected the article for help. BilCat (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Undid revision 1091401212 by Szagory (talk) unsourced, overlinking for Ramjet -> Soviet Union-2022-06-04T03:14:00.000Z">

(Would have preferred just to send you an email directly instead of posting on your talk page publicly, but I don't know if Misplaced Pages allows that)

Hi BilCat,

Not sure if undoing my changes in "Soviet Union" section of article on Ramjet was really called for - 9M730 Burevestnik is indeed the cruise missile mentioned in that section (the information in Burevestnik article tallies with what is mentioned in the section; and of the six strategic weapons announced by Putin on 1 Mar 2018 only "Burevestnik" is nuclear-powered cruise missile). With Wiki link to "Burevestnik" added, information in "Ramjet" article would be only improved, IMHO. And the Wiki links I added (for Lavochkin, for example) would be also useful to the reader, at the very least they wouldn't hurt... :-(

Serge Z. (talk), 03:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)"> ">

A brownie for you! (I just would like to say thanks)

Thank you for all of your contributions to WikiProject Aviation, and maintaining order and anti-vandalism on the pages. I really appreciate it! Henry Ingraham (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)