| Revision as of 00:13, 5 May 2008 editSMP0328. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,242 editsm →Arbcom request: Update← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:55, 11 August 2023 edit undoHemmers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users4,625 edits Notification: listing of Shooting ranges in the United States at WP:Articles for deletion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (277 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| ==Talk Archives== | |||
| *] -- 22 November 2005 - 14 July 2007 | |||
| *] -- 14 July 2007 - 7 April 2008 | |||
| == |
== Retired? == | ||
| Please feel free to leave comments. Thanks. ] | |||
| Forgive the intrusion, Yaf, but I am confused as to why you decided to come out of retirement to revert my edit. Your last edit was almost two years ago. Are you out of retirement, and can we look forward to your participation at GSL moving forward, as opposed to the occasional revert? I only ask because it is an ongoing article and may require time on the talk page to address changes and seek consensus. Seeking consensus, as you may know, is an important aspect, as well as ]. ] (]) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :I mostly have other interests, but sometimes some WP actions cause even the dead to spin in their graves. You really should not edit war. There is also the 3rr rule, too, that you should be aware of. I won't report you, but others may. ] (]) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I obeyed the 3RR rule if you wish to count my reverts for today. Please be careful not to ]. I won't report you either, but others may. ] (]) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Yaf == | |||
| Please consider undoing your 01:26, 28 April 2008 and 01:19, 28 April 2008 edits on the "types of firearms" section in "gun politics in the US." | |||
| ] '''You are suspected of ]''', which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the ], then respond to the evidence at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-socksuspect --> ] (]) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The Josh Sugarmann internal link does indeed contain the quotation I used; that quotation represents a pro-gun control source who felt that confusion was important to the bill's support (I can provide similar NRA-based comments, but I thought the Sugarmann quotation had more credibility). | |||
| == Blocked for sockpuppetry == | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = '''''This account has been ] ''''' from editing for a period of '''1 month''' for ]{{#if:]| per evidence presented at ]}}. Note that multiple accounts are ], but using them for '']'' reasons '''is not''', and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans ]. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to ]. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the ] first. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->}} | |||
| == Conditions on unblock of ] == | |||
| Also, I must admit that I have been unable to read Kruschke, but he ''was'' writing in 1995 (as to previous edit) and the confusion between full-auto and semi-auto in the American public is likely less now, after all the discussion that attended the aftermath and sunsetting of the 1994 assault weapons ban. | |||
| Yaf, | |||
| As to "third category," this is his conflation of semi-auto and full-auto firearms (see first paragraph of the "types" subsection). If he did write "automatic weapons" (the brackets indicate he did not), he made an error of logic: there are NO other automatic weapons (automatic and full-automatic are generally considered synonyms) besides machineguns and submachinguns--the inclusion of "certain types of military and police rifles" in his list is therefore either repetitive (if they are automatic) or incorrect (if they are semi-automatic, but he includes them as "automatic weapons"). | |||
| If you have retired, then this doesn't really affect you. But in case you choose to return, I've unblocked ] contingent on you and he not editing any articles or article talk pages if the other has edited it after 1 January 2015. See My understanding is that he has told you about this off-wiki and you've agreed. If that is not the case, let me know now. --] (]) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| If you feel that he truly meant ''automatic'' military and police rifles, and is merely redundant, please permit me to label his redundancy so <small>redundant</small>(in a superscript). | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| Finally, if you feel the "confusion" paragraph doesn't stand unless I get ANOTHER reference in addition to Sugarmann, I can do so. | |||
| <blockquote>'''This article is almost entirely uncited. One of the three refs is a list of places to shoot (]), with much of it written like a manual (flagged as an issue nearly 10 years ago). Another is lead risks, which is equally applicable to the main ] article (which also bears a ] template for being US-centric!). Weirdly, but perhaps tellingly, the article opens with a '''main''' hatnote, normally used at the start of sections. Much of the information duplicates ] and other articles, or is otherwise not very helpful ("...rental fees vary...", ya think? And sounds like a manual). It's unclear that there is enough US-specific encyclopaedic content to justify an entire article on US Ranges.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| icammd | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| :I don't categorically disagree with what you were trying to say. However, the removed text was: <blockquote><nowiki>It should be remembered that Krushke was writing in 1995, a time when popular misconceptions about ] and their semi-automatic commercial versions were credited as an important factor in the passage of the ]: " public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."<ref>], 1988</ref></nowiki></blockquote> | |||
| :and the reference is not verifiable as written. If you can find a quote by Sugarmann that says this, that would be great, but we would need to put Sugarmann's words in quotes, and use a reference/cite that is verifiable. As it was written, it was not verifiable. Find a source, put in quote marks as needed to identify it was a quote, cite it with a reference that is verifiable, and I would have no issues with this at all. Cheers, ] (]) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, ] (]) 10:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbcom== | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| Your participation in Arbcom is requested . Thank you. 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| == Lurking == | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. | |||
| For the record, I have followed your edit defense (hard to say you're warring when you're just trying to stand your ground) with SaltyBoar and would just like to let you know that your civility exceeds anything I would have exhibited. Mostly for that reason, I stick to the technical and avoid political discussions. I'd just like to commend you for "standing post" on this one. You do the work so others don't have to. --] (]) 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arbcom request== | |||
| OK, I'll see what I can do this afternoon. I've been putting this off for much the same reason that the "Hunting weapon" argument chased off not one, but two moderators--discussing things with him is about as pleasant as bashing one's head into a brick wall repeatedly... ] (]) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| So far five arbitrators have rejected hearing our case. The reason appears to be that they feel all of us need to be more open to compromise (i.e., a pox on all your houses). --] (]) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Problems in the Right Wing article == | |||
| Hello, another user has once again removed Fascism and Nazism from the ] article. I am sure you all came to a census on putting them there and you probably have more authority on the subject then me. I telling you this since you reverted the last attempt to get rid of the terms. ] (]) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:55, 11 August 2023
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.Retired?
Forgive the intrusion, Yaf, but I am confused as to why you decided to come out of retirement to revert my edit. Your last edit was almost two years ago. Are you out of retirement, and can we look forward to your participation at GSL moving forward, as opposed to the occasional revert? I only ask because it is an ongoing article and may require time on the talk page to address changes and seek consensus. Seeking consensus, as you may know, is an important aspect, as well as WP:AGF. Darknipples (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I mostly have other interests, but sometimes some WP actions cause even the dead to spin in their graves. You really should not edit war. There is also the 3rr rule, too, that you should be aware of. I won't report you, but others may. Yaf (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I obeyed the 3RR rule if you wish to count my reverts for today. Please be careful not to WP:POV RAILROAD. I won't report you either, but others may. Darknipples (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yaf
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf. Thank you. Felsic (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
 | This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Conditions on unblock of User:Miguel Escopeta
Yaf, If you have retired, then this doesn't really affect you. But in case you choose to return, I've unblocked User:Miguel Escopeta contingent on you and he not editing any articles or article talk pages if the other has edited it after 1 January 2015. See My understanding is that he has told you about this off-wiki and you've agreed. If that is not the case, let me know now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Shooting ranges in the United States
The article Shooting ranges in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article is almost entirely uncited. One of the three refs is a list of places to shoot (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), with much of it written like a manual (flagged as an issue nearly 10 years ago). Another is lead risks, which is equally applicable to the main Shooting Range article (which also bears a WP:Globalize template for being US-centric!). Weirdly, but perhaps tellingly, the article opens with a main hatnote, normally used at the start of sections. Much of the information duplicates Shooting range and other articles, or is otherwise not very helpful ("...rental fees vary...", ya think? And sounds like a manual). It's unclear that there is enough US-specific encyclopaedic content to justify an entire article on US Ranges.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Shooting ranges in the United States for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting ranges in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shooting ranges in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.