Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 16 March 2018

Archives

Nov 2015 * Dec 2015 January–February 2016 March 2016 * April 2016 May 2016 * June 2016 July 2016 * August 2016 Sept 2016 * Oct 2016 Nov 2016 * Dec 2016 January 2017 * February 2017 March 2017 * April 2017 May 2017 * June 2017 July 2017 * August 2017 Sept 2017 * October 2017 Nov 2017 * Dec 2017 January 2018 * Feb 2018

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

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)

Well, 'MastCell', literally, every, single, thing you just said (wrote) about how I "operate", my "agenda", my "beliefs", my "arguments", my "position", my "opinion", my "agenda" (again, but "personal" now) and my "edits"... was completely wrong. I don't know how any "sentient, literate human being" could possibly be more wrong. Now, please note how I specifically quoted so many items from your statement. I did that because I wanted to demonstrate that I carefully and thoroughly read your comments. A courtesy you have quite clearly, and utterly, failed to show me. I suggest you go over all the comments I have made the past few days, regarding these particular issues, on the related article talk pages, and actually read what I have written. Get yourself a more accurate and correct understanding of my "position", (etc., etc., etc.) on these issues, then come back and adjust your comments accordingly. Once we're on the same page, I'm more than willing to discuss this with you, and address any concerns you have, if you still have any. - WOLFchild 21:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

@Thewolfchild: Sorry I was not clear. I do not wish to discuss gun politics. What I mean to say is that if you have a problem with my editing, then please discuss your concerns on my Talk page or at an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:ANI. Here's a sampling of your recent comments at WP:GUNS directed at me / about me (permalink):

• anti-gun editors
• To assume bias is a lack of WP:AGF
• repetitive, off-topic nonsense
• Now you're just being disruptive
• an editor who has repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment (the “editor” is myself)
• Something about "bias" you said? Pfft! Talk about bias... Etc.

BTW, when you ostensibly quote someone, please use exact wording and / or include a diff. Nowhere on that page, I’ve used the word “bias” or said that any member of the project is "biased".

At WP:VP:

• appalling lack of faith and baseless accusations of bias (presumably, this is still about myself)
• your claims that editors from the Firearms Project were "biased"

… and my Talk page, in this discussion:

• … people whose political ideologies and anti-gun passions (…) taking that rage and disrupting the project with it
• I just don't want to see the project be adversely affected by that
• Too many people have a personal agenda here, someone needs to look out for the project

This comes across as if you believed that the project was under attack from those with a personal agenda and political ideologies, which perhaps was not your intention. I agree that Misplaced Pages is not a place to right wrongs, but neither it is a place for advocacy intended to debunk alleged NRA conspiracies. Re: We're not here to educate the populace about "how much firearms manufacturers make off the deaths of innocents" – where did this even come from? Were you intending to quote me, or anybody else?

I've quoted these items from your statements to show how you've communicated to this point, so I’m not surprised to see the reaction from Drmies and MastCell. I would appreciate it if you could stop with the language of “anti-gun sentiment”, “personal agenda”, and “disruption”. You may think that it’s just about look out for the project and making sure the articles don’t get waaay out of balance, but your comments came across as personal abuse, belittling, and casting aspersions. I definitely felt as if I were being attacked at WP:GUNS; I thought: whoa, where did this come from? :) Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you would like an exact quote, there here's one "I do not wish to discuss gun politics" said by you, right above. And here is my reply; "Neither do I." So what is it you are expecting from this? The majority of the quotes & diffs that you've selected (and posted without context) are from the Firearms Project talk page, and are now 4, almost 5 days old. (perhaps it took you that long to write out this gigantic post?) I could also say that I felt you were casting aspersions towards members and contributors to that project, including myself... but I won't. It's basically old news. The debate moved to Village pump, where I see the consensus in not in favor of the changes you and your cohort were seeking. Further to that, I see another editor accused you of canvassing, and yet another editor took issues with your attitude, posting this comment to you; "@K.e.coffman: - You should take some time to cool down, this is the second thing I have seen you involved in here. Just hope the editing isn't getting to you is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)" But instead of taking his advice, here you are, several days later, accusing me of all kind terrible and ghastly crimes and basically picking for a fight. Well, I'm not interested in that either. My main (and really only concern) is that the neutrality of articles is maintained. A majority of my comments will show that. I haven't even been active on the WP:GUNS page, AR-15 style page or the Village Pump RfC for awhile now. I've moved on to other things. Maybe you should to (or don't. you can do what you like, just know that I'm not interested in being involved). We've collaborated before. and I`m sure at some point down the road, on a different topic, we may very well collaborate again. Have a nice night - WOLFchild 04:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to move on, then perhaps not post on my Talk page as recently as today ? Yet, you add you and your cohort yet again -- who is that now? In any case, if you wish to discuss further with the other editors, then their Talk page is the right place for that. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the only reason I've posted here is because you specifically asked me to, (and repeatedly, no less). You pinged me to a comment posted to me, and so I replied, as you requested. I since noted that Drmies and Mastcell posted comments to, so I replied to them as well. With the most recent post, you pinged me again to a very, very lengthy and somewhat prevocational post directed at me and clearly seeking a response from me. So don't now complain about me posting on your page. I left my last message with a suggestion to move on, and even extended somewhat of an olive branch, which you ignored. This last comment of yours makes it seem that I was unwanted here from the start, and I'm disrupting your page. I'm just replying, not initiating. You posted. I replied. Then I suggested we move on. So let's do that. Again, have a nice night. - WOLFchild 04:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun control discretionary sanctions

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.

Template:Z33

@Bishonen: Thank you for the notice. I was actually notified back in October when I first edited the National Rifle Association article but forgot about it. I will read up on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Armin T. Wegner/GA1

K.e.coffman, it's been over a month since nominator JClemens made his most recent comment in the Sourcing section of your review there, and you haven't yet replied. Do you intend to return to the review? It would be nice to get things moving there again. If you don't intend to return, I can see what I can do to find another reviewer. Please let me know if I should do so. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the reminder. I requested a second opinion on the Talk page with additional comments on the review page . Hopefully, I would get some feedback soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the best way to get some new eyes on the NRA disagreement

K.e, I don't think either one of us has done a good job of winning the other one over. I feel very strongly that I'm correct and that it would be a disservice to our readers to remove the sort of information I'm trying to add. Basically I feel I'm improving NPOV in the article. I bet you feel the same way about your edits. To this end I'm asking what you think would be the most agreeable way to get more eyes on the subject. I was thinking about village pump. I don't really want to do a RfC but would be open if you think that's the best method. With only three of us really working there I think we need more points of view. Springee (talk)

@Springee:: thank you for your message. The first step would be for you to remove that edit that has been challenged. Per WP:ONUS, it's on you to achieve consensus about the edit that's been challenged, rather than insist on pushing one's edit though, as you are doing here, restoring the same material:

Even if it's not technically 3RR, you are edit warring against two editors, that's not okay. I've alerted you about your edits coming across as WP:SOAP here: . In the areas that are subject to AE enforcement, it's always best to self-revert first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, if we can work agree that we can readdress the issue once we get wider participation in the discussion I will remove it. Where should we ask for help? I was considering RSN Springee (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:NPOVN. Also, in general, please heed the advice you've been given here:

• Somewhat off-topic discussion on neutrality

--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Also, please roll back to this version: . You can put in the edit summary that it's a self-revert pending discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. So where do you suggest we take it from here? I would be open to a RfC but not for the exact edits. In that case I would think the question needs to be more open ended. Springee (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Thank you for self-reverting. I will look at the sources again. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1RR @ Hasbara

Please note that you violated 1RR with this edit in relation to prior edit on an article that is clearly ARBPIA (and clearly marked as such (it is protected - haven't checked the logs - but it's probably there). I respectfully request you self-revert. On a further note - it would seem from the reverting and the TP discussion that there is no consensus here, so I would suggest procedureally (if you deem this worthy of editorial time) that you take this up at NPOV/n, DRN, an RfC, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done: . Thank you for catching it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:War in History (book series)

Hello, K.e.coffman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "War in History".

In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your edits on Ahed Tamimi, Thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Rose City

It will be a while before I can do much on this subject as too much is too close to the TBAN that I need to appeal first. I hope to do this in a few months if all go well and things stay quiet. I was not happy with being brought up at AN/I, a few weeks back, but that was not my choice to make. Anyway, I must wait for now. Cheers - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: I thought it was an IBAN (interaction ban), not a TBAN (topic ban) - ? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It should have been a two way IBAN, but instead I received a TBAN from posting anything related to in any named page or it's TP back in October/November. I need a while without my name coming up on any Admin. boards before I appeal. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment South

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Police Regiment South 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: thank you; I look forward to the review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't copy text from articles anywhere

As you may have noticed, I removed the copypasted text you posted on Talk:AR-15 style rifle. Please do not paste material, attributed or not, from copyrighted sources, anywhere, including on talk pages. I've redacted the text and left a few sentences each for context, but please be more careful in the future. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: My bad; thank you for taking care of this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Police Regiment South

The article Police Regiment South you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Police Regiment South 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

James Allsup

Hey,

I am unsure if my ping worked but there is currently a discussion on Talk:James Allsup and since I see you were actively involved in the last discussion you may want to add your two cents. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)