Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:50, 15 March 2018

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Meme

There's nothing in the text that calls Carlson "racist". Please don't use misleading edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:No your right, it does not say Carlson is a racist. It says Carlson promoted this thing (he didn't) and this thing is like super racist... PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Which he did. So what's the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:You don't see why that is a problem? Also the ADL source used is trash and should not be used for such statements against a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. ADL is quite reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And no, I don't see why following reliable source is a problem. What is the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:ADL is reliable yes, ADL blog post is not reliable. Big difference. The problem is the inference we are making combing the two sources to make a statement neither one individually made. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification this is the ADL blog post I was refering to that was used in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Colt AR-15

I won't hold your inexperience against you, but you completely misunderstood the point here. The edit requests on the talk page are about adding a section called "uses", and that's not what I was doing. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: No worries, but you should read the opposes above your post. They all indicate opposition to any mass shooting information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's Soviet-style dogmatism then, isn't it? What an odd kind of whitewashing--surely readers of Misplaced Pages who hear on the radio or on TV about the AR-15 will be educated by our article, and will actually come looking for that kind of information. Odd. Didn't think that such editors would support censorship. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: While I understand your feels on the subject, perhaps making your case and getting consensus would be the least disruptive route given the edit warring the past few days on the article. Clams of censorship and whitewashing is not the best way to get your point across nor give you the right to act against obvious consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Feels"? Sorry, I'm 49. "Feelings"? I am not sure you understand my feelings, which are irrelevant at any rate. There is no consensus against explaining the nomenclatural confusion regarding the term "AR-15". Surely you saw that 350,000 people visited the article after the massacre committed by someone with one of those guns. Sorry to sound old, but I don't need to be patronized by someone with 1/75th the number of article edits on this project--sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Regardless I have started a discussion on the talk page and it can go from there. I saw you already commented there so that's a good start have a great night! PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw that--thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump poll

Hi thanks for tending to this. I think it's still not clear to newcomers. I suggest copying both versions of the language and doing an A / B or something similar. By the time we have a dozen contributors !votes, these polls keep going off track. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You are a pain in the butt, you know that? But it is a good suggestion and I will update the poll. Thanks PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool. It's American Politics that is our nemesis. Thanks for your contributions! SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Uh-oh are they going to start another request move? Those are painful =/ PackMecEng (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding gun control

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

I was wondering when I would get my very own notice, I was starting to feel a little left out! DS are duly noted PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You think it's amusing. That's fine. See warning below. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

Warning

Hi, PackMecEng. I don't understand why you removed this sentence, calling it "misleading and poorly written". I can see your explanations on the talkpage, but I still don't understand it, because they're feeble explanations.

For the sentence being misleading, you offer, in preference to the impressive array of secondary sources (CNN, CBS News, Wired magazine, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, The New York Times, ABC News, and The Guardian) that the sentence was sourced to, one primary source, a statistics page detailing the type of weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2017 — yes, really, during the past 35 years, with no information per year at all, no definition of how "mass shooting" was defined in the 20th century, and interpreted, by you, to mean that "the vast majority of mass shootings are done with handguns of some type over any rifle or shotgun". Please read our policy against Original research and note especially the sentence "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Or just use common sense and figure out that what the media are discussing today are the recent mass shootings. Very little to do with the 1980s.

For calling the sentence badly written, you refer to the part of the sentence referencing the sources as "just a mash of jumbled links and names that do not add meaning besides trying to wp:overcite to give false validity to and misleading opinion". You seem to consider citing many reliable sources a bad idea. Maybe a few could indeed be left out, but the number of them hardly invalidates the text. The list of sources presumably becomes a "mash" or "jumble" in your view by virtue of being listed by year (2016, 2017, and 2018), because without the years it's just a list, which could by no stretch of the imagination be called a mash. These are very feeble complaints. If you find the sentence too information-packed to be easily read ("jumbled"), feel free to improve it. I'm warning you against further WP:tendentious editing in gun control related articles. You may be topic banned from the area, or otherwise sanctioned, if you don't follow our neutrality policy. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: There is a discussion right now on the talk page about this very subject. We can head over there and talk it out, but here is not the appropriate venue for content issues. PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As I just told you, at some length, I've seen your posts on the talkpage. But do continue discussing there, by all means. For my part I don't edit these articles, nor discuss or 'talk things out' on their talkpages — I'm an uninvolved admin in the gun control area, and what I do is warn/sanction people when I find it necessary. And when I do that, I explain why I've done it. That's what you see above. If you want to challenge my warning, right here, feel free. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen:Then I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about a content issue. My mistake, if it is just a be careful I will try to follow that advice. It is a rough subject on all ends and sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, will you now, as a show of good faith, restore that content? Pinging Bishonen -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I am happy to discuss the issues with the text on the talk page. But please note the conversation on this topic previously listed on the page and the concerns me and another editor have with the text. Also for future reference it would be polite to inform the people you report to AE that you brought them up there. PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The explanation above should be good enough to convince you to move forward with a restoration (including possible improvement). Just do the right thing. Deletion is not a legitimate option.

Let's face it, any RfCs, essays, and local consensus among the usual editors there which say otherwise are against policies and should be ignored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)