Revision as of 23:49, 22 February 2018 editThewolfchild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers51,833 edits →page move← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:42, 23 February 2018 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →page move: at the risk of speaking for drmies, i think this is what he meantNext edit → | ||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
::::Sorry, but I don't think ''you'' checked all your shit at the door. ] (]) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC) | ::::Sorry, but I don't think ''you'' checked all your shit at the door. ] (]) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
:::::I respectfully disagree. I absolutely appreciate that many people are upset about the recent shootings, (and all these mass shootings in general), as am I. But I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that. I'm not looking to get into any pro- vs. anti-gun disputes here, Drmies (or K.e.c), I'm really not. Again, I'm not trying to suppress any information either, whether it's about these shootings, or the firearms used in them, or the public's access to such firearms, or the companies that make them. I'd just like to see that any content changes or additions regarding these issues, are done so with community-wide support, (as opposed to conflicting local consensuses), that guidelines are followed, and that affected articles remain neutral and encyclopaedic. Cheers - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) | :::::I respectfully disagree. I absolutely appreciate that many people are upset about the recent shootings, (and all these mass shootings in general), as am I. But I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that. I'm not looking to get into any pro- vs. anti-gun disputes here, Drmies (or K.e.c), I'm really not. Again, I'm not trying to suppress any information either, whether it's about these shootings, or the firearms used in them, or the public's access to such firearms, or the companies that make them. I'd just like to see that any content changes or additions regarding these issues, are done so with community-wide support, (as opposed to conflicting local consensuses), that guidelines are followed, and that affected articles remain neutral and encyclopaedic. Cheers - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
::::::I think what Drmies is saying is that you ''are'' operating on the basis of your personal agenda, but lack the self-awareness to realize it. Let me elaborate. You believe, adamantly, that firearm articles should not contain information about mass shootings perpetrated with those firearms (per your statement above). Now, I'm not involved in firearms articles and I'm hardly a gun expert, but it's blindingly obvious to me, as a sentient, literate human being, that many, many reliable sources clearly link specific firearms (e.g. AR-15-style rifles) to mass shootings in the US.<p>So this association appears in numerous reliable sources, in the direct context of the firearm family in question, yet you argue that it should not appear on Misplaced Pages. Your position isn't based on an objective summary of the best available reliable sources (it can't possibly be); it's based on your personal opinion about relevancy, and presumably on your personal agenda. In this case, ''you'' are the person failing to edit neutrally when you try to exclude this information. In fact, you're substituting your personal agenda for clear site policy, which mandates that we reflect the content and context of the best available reliable sources. And yes, someone needs to look out for the project. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
==Gun control discretionary sanctions== | ==Gun control discretionary sanctions== |
Revision as of 16:42, 23 February 2018
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present. |
Otto von Knobelsdorff
Hi, just a courtesy message letting you know that I removed your refimprove tag on the Otto von Knobelsdorff article due to deleting the huge amount of guff that had been added by an IP back in December and which I figured prompted your addition of the tag in the first place. Googling a few phrases of guff, I found that all that material was entirely, or at least largely, a cut and paste from a webpage. I assume you are OK with the sources otherwise? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Zawed: Yes, thank you for removing the copyvio 'cruft. I don't have any concerns otherwise. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Police Regiment Centre
The article Police Regiment Centre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Police Regiment Centre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Police Regiment South
What do you mean by "driven anti-Semitism"? Do you want me to supplement the activities section with the info from Arico and whatever else I can dig up? I do think that we need to cover the transition to more anti-partisan ops in '42. Unlike Centre and North, South wasn't redeployed to the frontlines during the Soviet winter counter-offensive. Do you think that this should be mentioned explicitly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Yes, if you have additional information you can add to the article, that would be great. On the first point, it was a typo (missing "by"). On the last point, yes, it's worthwhile to mention. BTW, I procured Westermann's book (Hitler's Police Battalions) which is excellent, even if it's a grim read. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just got it through ILL myself and should have Uniformed Police Forces of the Third Reich: 1933 - 1945 by Phil Nix arriving next week. So hopefully some more organizational history as the post-Barbarossa period is pretty thinly sourced. Also just got In Broad Daylight: The Secret Procedures Behind the Holocaust by Bullets by Father Patrick Desbois. Won the National Jewish Book Award. Amazing interviews of the people who assisted the Germans in their murderous tasks; really a worm's eye view of how some of these massacres were set up and conducted. I found mentions of some post-Barbarossa massacres conducted by Pol.-Rgt. 15 that I need to add to that article.
Fritz Lanman and other Lanmans
Not paid/hired, not related, just volunteer local historian and genealogist who has helped this family and other local notables John Warnock, Charles Geschke once they achieve notability with suitable citations. My primary wikipedia work is streams and their ecology. Schmiebel (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Schmiebel: thank you for letting me know. However, some of the edits come across as bordering on promotionalism, such as:
- This is a WP:SPIP source, not suitable for statements in Misplaced Pages voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree and will editSchmiebel (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleting articles about certain companies
Hi, today I objected to several deletions you had requested for articles about companies that apparently had originally been created as part of a covert paid editing scheme. I think that these companies are sufficiently notable and that the current version of each article has been cleaned up enough to mitigate NPOV issues. I would like to encourage you to think about the value that a neutral, factual Misplaced Pages article can have for readers seeking impartial information about such a company.
However, I also wanted to let you know that I share the general concern about the effects of undisclosed paid editing; and I do agree that there are cases where deleting or stubbing articles about borderline notable subjects who aggressively try to promote themselves on Misplaced Pages can be preferable over the laborious effort to deal with such activities. Please do keep up your good work on enforcing Misplaced Pages's principles. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @HaeB: thank you for your message. I obviously disagree about the notability of the subject, that's why I nominated the article for deletion:
- I think it's a bit naive to believe that an NPOV article can be created on private companies that do a lot of self-promotion; i.e. who has independently verified that the company has 800 customers? And not 80? Etc. But opinions vary. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Erich Hoepner
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erich Hoepner you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
HIAG
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article HIAG has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Good luck with the aricle as it moves forward.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Twofingered Typist: thank you. I appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Republic of Florida (group)
this is not allowed. Thank you, sir. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Republic of Florida (group). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Bayesian
An article that you have been involved in editing—Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Semiautomatic assault weapons
No, I don't think I'll remove anything. Your adds at NRA strike me as POV. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm simply not going to endorse you imposing it on the page. TREKphiler 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Trekphiler: Thank you for letting me know. I don't believe that this was an appropriate comment on an article Talk page (), which should focus on content, not contributors. If you wish to discuss my alleged
anti-NRA, anti-gun POV
, please feel free to do so on my Talk page :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Norden
Hi, I'm respectfully asking for a response on the Nordic countries talk page regarding Estonia. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SørenKierkegaard: I commented, but I feel you might get more participation out of a WP:RFC. The page does not appear to be well trafficked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
page move
A proper page move request has been posted to Talk:Modern sporting rifle. You may want to post your reasons, and any supporting guidelines, in support of the move there. Notice of the move request will be posted at WP:RM and the community will now have an opportunity to discuss the move. (consider this your notice). - WOLFchild 02:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Right, this is obviously a potentially controversial move and I'm a little surprised that it wasn't contested sooner. The discussion should be allowed to run for at least seven days. FYI, I'm the bot operator who supports this process. wbm1058 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: As with Trekphiler, who I offered same, if you wish to discuss my allegedly having
repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment
, please feel free to do so on my Talk page :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)- You see... that's just it. I'm not interested in debating the politics of firearms here. I just don't like to see people who's political ideologies and anti-gun passions, that have been inflamed by the recent shooting, taking that rage and disrupting the project with it. They need to check that shit at the door. If you've been paying attention, the position I've taken on the issue, now at RfC, is to oppose filling up firearm articles with giant walls of prose about one mass-murder after another. The type of additions that will never end because there will always be some kind of firearms-related incident in the news, including mass-shootings among others. What does that do to these articles? Puts them waaay out of balance. Look through my posts and you'll see just that. I'm not trying to suppress any information. I've made no "pro-" or "anti-gun" comments. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. It's not a place to right wrongs. We're not here to educate the populace on the 'evils' of "these semi-auto "assault rifles", that have no other purpose than to kill people", or specifically the AR-15 and how many people it's killed and "how much firearms manufacturers make off the deaths of innocents" and all the NRA conspiracies. All that needs to stop.
- That goes for renaming that article. I've made my position clear on that and so I won't repeat it here. There is now a proper page move request posted. People will actually have an opportunity to have their say before it's moved (if it's moved). The process takes seven (7) days and the page has been move-protected for that time, It's how it should've been done in the first place. Also, you'll notice I didn't post any actual argument against the move. I didn't even post a !vote. I just want to see it done properly, and if the community comes up with a consensus to move it, then I'm fine with that. It was done the right way, and it can't be argued after.
- Too many people have a personal agenda here, someone needs to look out for the project. - WOLFchild 05:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think you checked all your shit at the door. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. I absolutely appreciate that many people are upset about the recent shootings, (and all these mass shootings in general), as am I. But I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that. I'm not looking to get into any pro- vs. anti-gun disputes here, Drmies (or K.e.c), I'm really not. Again, I'm not trying to suppress any information either, whether it's about these shootings, or the firearms used in them, or the public's access to such firearms, or the companies that make them. I'd just like to see that any content changes or additions regarding these issues, are done so with community-wide support, (as opposed to conflicting local consensuses), that guidelines are followed, and that affected articles remain neutral and encyclopaedic. Cheers - WOLFchild 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think what Drmies is saying is that you are operating on the basis of your personal agenda, but lack the self-awareness to realize it. Let me elaborate. You believe, adamantly, that firearm articles should not contain information about mass shootings perpetrated with those firearms (per your statement above). Now, I'm not involved in firearms articles and I'm hardly a gun expert, but it's blindingly obvious to me, as a sentient, literate human being, that many, many reliable sources clearly link specific firearms (e.g. AR-15-style rifles) to mass shootings in the US.
So this association appears in numerous reliable sources, in the direct context of the firearm family in question, yet you argue that it should not appear on Misplaced Pages. Your position isn't based on an objective summary of the best available reliable sources (it can't possibly be); it's based on your personal opinion about relevancy, and presumably on your personal agenda. In this case, you are the person failing to edit neutrally when you try to exclude this information. In fact, you're substituting your personal agenda for clear site policy, which mandates that we reflect the content and context of the best available reliable sources. And yes, someone needs to look out for the project. MastCell 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think what Drmies is saying is that you are operating on the basis of your personal agenda, but lack the self-awareness to realize it. Let me elaborate. You believe, adamantly, that firearm articles should not contain information about mass shootings perpetrated with those firearms (per your statement above). Now, I'm not involved in firearms articles and I'm hardly a gun expert, but it's blindingly obvious to me, as a sentient, literate human being, that many, many reliable sources clearly link specific firearms (e.g. AR-15-style rifles) to mass shootings in the US.
- I respectfully disagree. I absolutely appreciate that many people are upset about the recent shootings, (and all these mass shootings in general), as am I. But I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that. I'm not looking to get into any pro- vs. anti-gun disputes here, Drmies (or K.e.c), I'm really not. Again, I'm not trying to suppress any information either, whether it's about these shootings, or the firearms used in them, or the public's access to such firearms, or the companies that make them. I'd just like to see that any content changes or additions regarding these issues, are done so with community-wide support, (as opposed to conflicting local consensuses), that guidelines are followed, and that affected articles remain neutral and encyclopaedic. Cheers - WOLFchild 23:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think you checked all your shit at the door. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: As with Trekphiler, who I offered same, if you wish to discuss my allegedly having
Gun control discretionary sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.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 that 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. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC).