Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 13 April 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Nomination of Neall Ellis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neall Ellis 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/Neall Ellis until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruger SR22

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ruger SR22 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.firearms-safety-course.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69:map-22-silvercore&catid=11:firearms-training-articles-&Itemid=76. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction (DS) alert

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 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.

Template:Z33 Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

fyi

You are being accused of being a sock of North8000. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/North8000. EChastain (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MAIG logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MAIG logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL Conflating

Hi, FE. Please feel free to point out that "in your opinion" my citations or suggestions may not fall under the realm of GSL, and or, why. However, your comment that I was "conflating" can easily be interpreted as UNCIVIL. Could you please clarify what you meant by this? Darknipples (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize; it was not meant to be uncivil. I'll explain further on the article talk page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey there

I'd like to preface this by saying, I'm in no way trying to tell you how to edit. You are obviously experienced and probably already know most of what I'm about to say, but I feel it would be prudent of me to touch on some friendly methods, if I may, with regard to editing on GSL, in order to avoid (my) confusion and therefore remove the possibility of conflict and or misunderstandings. It's always a good idea to at least start a discussion on the TP before or immediately after removing someone else's material that they worked to search, create, and add then to the article. It's also always better to try and just add to the article instead of only removing material (which you usually do add to the article as well), unless it is unsupported by cites OR involves SYNTH in relation to the subject (such as in the case where you removed material about the V. Tech tragedy, and were absolutely correct in doing so). Second, as much as possible, try to avoid referencing or using cites that make no mention of the term GSL. By referring or using cites that literally have the term mentioned in the context you are trying to convey, it makes it much easier for me to be receptive to the changes you'd like to make. In fact, I can almost guarantee I will agree to changes that are presented in this manner. Hopefully I'm not just being redundant, but if I am, please don't take offense, it is only in an effort to improve civil discourse between us and the GSL article. Darknipples (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: First, I'm only about a month "older" than you, (not including when I used to edit before a multi-year hiatus). So we're learning together. Second, I prefer not to start a TP discussion if I feel the edit summary is sufficient to explain my reasoning. The TP on GSL is already cluttered enough. If something gets added back in, or taken back out a second time, then it's probably good to start a TP discussion, but I don't think they're necessary or useful for stuff that can be resolved with edit summaries. More time discussing editing means less time actually editing. As to the source issue, it's going to be tough to do that with the GSL article for two big reasons. 1) It's about the lack of a law, not about a law. So for sections that talk about an overview of current law it will inherently be difficult to find good sources that mention GSL. Likewise, there are plenty of excellent sources that will not mention it. We need to make sure that the source backs up the statement at hand, whether or not it mentions the GSL by name. If you're aware of any policy that requires the article title be mentioned in sources, please let me know. 2) One side of the debate says it's not a loophole at all, so they're going to avoid calling it that except to say that it doesn't exist. A quick search of ATF's website shows no results for the word "loophole" (though that may be more of a comment on their website's search function than anything else; Google finds 63 results). Point is, a lot of good, relevant sources will write about GSL or the issues surrounding it without mentioning it by name. As I see it, our job is to make sure the sources back up the statements at hand, whether or not they mention GSL by name. For an example of what I mean, see this section of the Grand Canyon article. Two of the sources in that section (#16 & #21) don't mention the Grand Canyon at all. They're still good sources though, because they back up the statement at hand. Anyway, thanks for the input and discussion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You're passionate about your beliefs without being a jerk. Something that seems to be hard for many site-wide these days... :) Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks. :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

In the spirit of civil discourse - I think I owe you one - I know we may disagree on technicalities, but as humans, we all just want the same thing - beer Darknipples (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Beer gave us civilization! :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Please accept this with my apologies Darknipples (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Let's get back to editing.  :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GPTF

I have added my support. I feel I can be a valued part of this team. Darknipples (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for your opinion. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I'm being sweet Darknipples (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Roses are red, brownies are brown. They're always delicious if you're feeling down. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WTH and PS

WTH? First you thank me for this edit - - then, 20 minutes later, you delete it and the material it supported as a "poor source"? And deleted info sourced to the National Shooting Sports Foundation about the gun industry that gives the paragraph's opening sentences some context? Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you for fixing the page, but decided the source you fixed in was unreliable. To me, a "thank" doesn't always mean I agree with the edit - just that it was a helpful contribution. And I feel that putting the line about the NSSF in there in that way is undue; it may unintentionally mislead readers to believe that the gun industry provides more than half of the NRA's money. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: What is "PAK"? (All that stuff gives your talk-page an annoying you-gotta-be-an-insider-to-get-it kind of vibe.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember. 2010 was a while ago. Not sure how to archive things, and to date I haven't cared enough to learn. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think some of your fellow editors (myself included) would appreciate it. Here are instructions on how to archive: Cut and paste procedure. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Re all the stuff you removed from the NRA article. First, Business Insider is NOT "clickbait." But more importantly, we discussed all of this only recently.

Perhaps you have heard that I am out of my home state and that I broke my elbow yesterday to boot! Let's wait until I'm home (waiting for a doc's appt) before we resume this debate. I don't mind you adding due, balancing material - but please don't delete mine. I am pinging Felsic on this, too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I replaced all of the clickbait links with actual sources pretty quickly, and I think the only statement I removed ("considerable amount") I would have removed either way for editorializing. We got to the same place without the bad source, so I don't see the value in leaving it in. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And ETA on your return? I'm about to propose something else that you probably will disagree with. I was actually going to post it yesterday, but held off because I saw what you said. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, Business Insider is NOT a "clickbait" source. (If you think it is, maybe try WP:RSN?) If you want to ADD a source or sources, fine, but don't delete others because you don't like what they say, which is:

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

"The bulk of" and "much" mean "considerable" (or "significant"), which we discussed earlier this month.

Also, your re edit summary, "Undid mass reversion": My edit was in response to your string of (mass) edits moving and REMOVING material that I added three weeks ago.

If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others. If you want to add due, balancing info, fine, but - again - don't delete what I wrote because you don't agree it with or dislike the source.

I'm scheduled be home April 8. Probably with my arm still in a sling, but at least at my own computer. Lightbreather (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll hold off for a couple more days on the other thing them. And I re-sourced the statements in question with more reputable sources than the writer who brought us "39 Photos That Prove Birthday Boy Vladimir Putin Is The Most Badass Leader In The World". If you actually look at the edits they're mostly about re-sourcing things. I managed to track down the original source of the Sugarmann quote, and I also put in the VPC article, which I feel is a pretty important source for that section. Please take the time to read through the article as it stands now, rather than mass removing the sources and content I added. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I probably don't say this enough, but I thank you for your efforts. Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Česká Zbrojovka Uherský Brod (logo).png

Thanks for uploading File:Česká Zbrojovka Uherský Brod (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)