Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:29, 15 November 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

File:AWB 1994 sources - side by side.pdf

This image has been listed at [[WP:PUF|possibly unfree files.

Can you provide more information on the source of the text? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the links to the sources - public documents freely available on the Internet - are in the bottom row of the table. I created the table using Microsoft Word. Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Hello, Lightbreather. I haven't said anything there lately, but I've been looking in on Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban from time to time, on a casual basis so to speak. I have a friendly suggestion for you. I recommend that you don't edit other editors' talk page posts. I know you've studied WP:TPO, which lists a number of possible exceptions to this guideline. My suggested rule of thumb is not to do it at all, even if you think other editors are being uncivil or rude, or mis-characterizing your own activities. Anyway, I hope you had that martini, I know I would find that helpful. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater 00:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hola, Mudwater! Como estas? I DID have a martini -I had two, which I've only done once before! - and I AM feeling better. Thanks. The funny thing... Sue edited my post on the AWB talk page before, and she didn't revert it when I asked her to. Guess I should've started an ANI discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to my asking her to revert a change she made to MY post on the AWB talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lightbreather/Archive_1#Please_stop_.5Bmoved_here_from_Sue_Rangell.27s_talk_page.2C_by_Sue_Rangell.5D_2

I posted this using my phone, so if anything hinky happens, PLEASE don't assume I'm up to something.

I sure could use a LITTLE support on the AWB page right now! Lightbreather (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Americans for Responsible Solutions

On 7 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Americans for Responsible Solutions, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the founders of gun-control organization Americans for Responsible Solutions, Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly, are gun owners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Americans for Responsible Solutions. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather, congratulations on what I believe from the article talkpage is your first DYK! Just letting you know that I have added links to Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly in the hook on the Main Page, because someone pointed out on Main Page/Errors that they were missing. Don't be afraid to link to relevant articles in future Did You Know hooks; readers may want to check the context. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice work! StarryGrandma (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Hi Lightbreather,

About criteria. I think this is definitely one case where the criteria of assault weapon needs to be defined before talking about the provisions. Think of the kid in New Zealand. It's clearer if assault weapon in this context gets defined upfront. With the pictures. Before the section with the legislative provisions, even if one of them is the definition. Please put it back.

The article needs more new information in areas that haven't been included before. This should go in before trying to renegotiate subtler things, like the overall tone of the article and what particular words mean. The passage of the 1994 law was an intense piece of legislative history. It needs a good article. I know people are interested in interpretations of what the ban meant and I know there are current efforts to ban weapons, but the legislation is actually the subject of the article. Look at Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX (of the Education Amendments of 1972). StarryGrandma (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello SG. I already logged off my computer for evening. Visiting with sister. (Sending this brief reply via phone.) Will check back in tomorrow morning. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, SG. I have re-moved the Provisions section to after the Criteria section. Some of your review items are explicit, and some are implicit or open to interpretation. I am going back to re-read your original, plus the background/context section review on the article talk page, plus the short discussion we had/have going on your page.

I think what might be helpful to me is a draft outline of where you think the current and to-be-developed sections should go. After working on the article, reading your comments and those of Calathan on Oct. 1 (an informal review), this is what I saw in my head:

1. Lead
2. Background/context (being developed)
3. Provisions
4. Criteria
5. Effects/impact
6. Legal challenges (developed)
7. Efforts to renew/replace

Maybe that is a good thing to discuss on the article page? Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back. Here's and outline with my reasons for the order

• Lead
• Legislative history (not context) - the history in Congress is triggered by events, enough to mention them as they happen
• Criteria - after history, since changed a bit during the history, but before the provisions. For a simpler law the criteria (a provision) would go in with provisions, but an outside reader needs this information earlier.
• Provisions
• Legal challenges - better here, the discussion on effects took longer to develop
• Effects/impact
• Efforts to renew the ban

It would be a good idea to put it up for discussion on the talk page.

Agreed, and I will - unless you want to? Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Stay away from the "cosmetic" issue. It's a part of the article that has been too unstable in the past. It sounds like most of the opposition you are seeing is an unwillingness to reopen the conflicts in that area. But they don't mean it to support one side or the other.

I hear you! I have been avoiding bringing it up - and the article title (all caps is wrong, IMO) - but when they come up, I put in my thoughts. (I don't want anyone to assume my silence means something.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article is a title, like a book, though not put in italics. It's the way bills are referred to. See Civil Rights Act of 1964. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to work on the research provision and research studies part of the article. I seem to be the only one who thinks academic research conflicts are fun to look at. Would you be comfortable working on the legislative history? I have a fair amount of references I can pass on. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be honored to help. You have taken on far more than I expected, but it's probably for the best since a few editors can't seem to accept that I'm editing in good faith. It is to be hoped, in time...

My sister is visiting me now, though she will spend part of her time at our other sister's place. I will do what I can in between.

I'm not sure I get you on the Criteria/Provisions thing, but maybe it's just about how we're using the terms? Nonetheless, I trust your judgement. Oh, and I think the Efforts section header needs to be modified somehow. Efforts weren't always about renewing the ban... some were about replacing it altogether. Lightbreather (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI NOTICE

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

About Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPA now deleting/altering talk-page comments

Sorry this has happened and sorry you are upset. I've added my comment there. Do not respond any more unless asked to specifically. Do not engage in back and forth with people there. There are editors who object to what you want to change in the article and they know how to push your buttons to make you say and do things that make you look bad.

Also don't work on any of the existing content in the article. No one has objected to having a legislative history and we will work on that together in one of my sandboxes. I have to drive my husband to the airport. I'll say more when I get back. StarryGrandma (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've begun to accumulate references in User:StarryGrandma/Blackboard. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got more references in there now, with some notes on the content of the references. Next I will try to put together some text. I think I understand the chronology now. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a short response, but I'm not going back unless I'm asked a question with a specific DIFF. I am looking forward to working on this addition. Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving on from ANI and "cosmetic"

Editing on Misplaced Pages means working and collaborating within interesting groups of people with many different points of view. It can be a joy. However, it means adopting a particular style. What flows through the notice boards with accusations and temper flares is not how Misplaced Pages flows beneath the surface.

Now I am going to tell you what to do. I am not asking, I am telling you what to do to work within the Misplaced Pages community.

First, you (and I) are going to do no more and say no more and comment no more on the Criteria section of the assault weapon ban article in general and "cosmetic" in particular. Not until the year 2015. The article will have enough balance once it has more content.

You will not modify existing content in the assault weapon ban article. It is hard for a set of editors to maintain balance in a very controversial article, and we all have to respect other editors efforts over the years regardless of their point of view.

You will not respond if someone says something negative about you. You will ignore it. I am visiting my grandchildren (brrr, in a cold climate) and rode home with them from school yesterday. "He did...":, "she did..." while crawling through rush hour traffic. Happily for adult sanity they live next to a large park and their mother lets them off at the far edge to run home, through the fallen leaves and the stars coming out.

You will not comment about other people as you did on the talk page for the assault weapons ban, not on article talk pages, not on user talk pages, not on your own talk page. You asked, "how should one editor respond when another writes the kinds of things Mike Searson just wrote?" I will tell you. You ignore it. (I grew up in a mining town. I know and like people who sound just like Mike, but even if I didn't I would just ignore it.)

Agreed, SG. I trust your judgment. Lightbreather (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I made five minor/small edits on the AWB talk page this a.m. Three corrected small errors in my own posts; one added a sig where I replied to another editor and split his post; another was to re-redact a reverted WP:PA post that ANI admin. TP said was appropriately redeacted. I don't think these edits break our agreement, but I'm telling you about them just to be up-front. Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I need you to work on something I ran into last night which upset me. See below. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

LB, just a friendly word of advice. You might want to step away from the AWB article for awhile and work on something else. Some of those there are going to oppose anything you do, will push your buttons, and will trigger a topic ban (or worse). You're a good editor. Don't let one article which isn't going to go anywhere be a hindrance to your editing here. You can always come back to it later. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, GJP! Thanks. I have worked on other articles, and I will continue to do so as the spirit moves. (I've learned a lot about online identity, and am researching that as time permits, and I recently had fun doing a peer review for a KFC article.) I have also readjusted my goals for improving the AWB article, but I won't just leave it, nor should I have to. I will defend myself if someone makes it about character rather than content, regardless of the article, and I will also speak up if another editor presents an unsupportable argument, regardless of the article. I don't think this is contrary to WP policy.

Admin. TP over on that ANI Sue started seems to have offered me an opportunity to "boomerang" her, which really doesn't appeal to me - unless maybe I was sure that it would get her off my back. So I'll probably keep pondering it until or unless TP closes the discussion. If you have any advice on that, as a more experienced WP editor, I would like to hear it.

I also wish that A. would keep his comments relevant and on content, too. His Nov. 11 "Federal Hawley-Jensen control valve ban" ruse was a fallacious argument, and he wanted to get me side-tracked on that, but I didn't bite.

How are you? What are you working on these days? Thanks again, and take care... Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Name the fallacy. All fallacies have formal names. Identify it. I already asked you on the article talk page to do so. Now you're repeating the claim, yet apparently cannot back it up. My example was directly relevant to what was being discussed. Anastrophe (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, in keeping with the general spirit, I request that you strike "ruse". That's a direct attack on my character. I don't engage in deception. Anastrophe (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack Brooks article needs help

I was reading the article last night on the Texas Democrat Jack Brooks. He is part of the drama of the legislative history of the assault weapons ban. He is the longest serving Representative to have lost his seat in a reelection campaign, probably because his name became too closely associated with the passage of the ban even though he was against it. He was one of only seven Southern Democrats who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which barely squeaked through). He more than supported it. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee he helped write the act and get it passed in the House.

In 2008 someone updated his article by copy-pasting or closely paraphrasing material from his biography at the University of Texas where his papers are collected at the library. The source is here. Normally I would just erase the copyright violation but that wouldn't leave him with much of an article and he deserves a good one. I would be very thankful if you would rewrite it. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)